alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7675

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FREDDIE LEE CURRY, a/k/a King of da Hood, a/k/a Rat,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District 

Judge. (1:08-cr-00729-MBS-4; 1:12-cv-00653-MBS)

Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 6, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddie Lee Curry, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Stanley D. 

Ragsdale, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Lee Curry seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Curry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1441. CHRISTIAN MCCLENDON v. THE STATE.

Christian McClendon pled guilty to robbery inMay of 2007, and wassentenced

to twelve years to serve three. In November 2014, the state filed a petition to revoke

McClendon’s probation. The trial court revoked McClendon’s probation, and

McClendon filed a pro se notice of appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

 Because the underlying subject matter of the appeal is the revocation of

McClendon’s probation, he was required to file an application for discretionary

appeal in order to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5); White v. State, 233 Ga. App.

873 (505 SE2d 228) (1998). We lack jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is

therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/31/2015

March 31, 2015
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guoji Liu,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





Date: August
16, 2010


By:
              /s/ Guoji LiuGuoji
      LiuChief
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the use in the Statement of Additional Information
constituting part of this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (the "Registration
Statement") of (1) our report dated February 6, 2002 relating to the financial
statements of Separate Account Nos. 4, 191, 200 and 206 of The Equitable Life
Assurance Society of the United States for the year ended December 31, 2001; (2)
our reports dated February 18, 2002 relating to the financial statements of
Separate Account Nos. 8 and 30 of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the
United States for the year ended December 31, 2001; and (3) our report dated
February 6, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial statements of The
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States for the years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2000. We also consent to the use in the Prospectus
Supplement constituting part of this Registration Statement of our report dated
February 6, 2002 relating to the financial statements of Separate Account No. 4
of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. We also consent to
the references to us under the headings "Condensed Financial Information" and
"About Our Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
April 17, 2002
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Kentucky First Federal Bancorp (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tony D.Whitaker, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

| /s/Tony D. Whitaker                               |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |
| Tony D. Whitaker                                  |   |
| Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                              |   |
| May 15, 2006                                      |   |
### In The Matter Of: EPA Bristol Bay Public Meeting -- Kokhanok August 14, 2014 Midnight Sun Court Reporters 511 W. 9th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99501 Ph. 907-258-7100 Fax 907-276-6727

To open files, click on the desired file type in bookmark on left. For quick saving or searching multiple files, click attachments tab (or paperclip) on left. For best viewing/searching, use Adobe Reader/Acrobat ver. 9 or higher (www.adobe.com).
Docket No: FAA-2015-0243 Dir ID: 2014-NM-114-AD
2015 UT App 82

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF B.L.D., A PERSON UNDER 

EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

B.L.D.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20140494-CA

Filed April 9, 2015

Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable C. Dane Nolan

No. 142590

Monica Maio, Pamela L. Vickrey, and William R. 

Russell, Attorneys for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and Tera J. Peterson, Attorneys

for Appellee

Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, JOHN A. PEARCE, and 

KATE A. TOOMEY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 B.L.D. appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order 

imposing thirty days of detention as a result of an adjudication 

of curfew violation. This case is before the court on the State’s

motion for summary reversal and remand, which the State filed 

in lieu of a brief. We grant that motion.

¶2 B.L.D.’s appeal raises the single issue of whether the 

juvenile court erred in ordering thirty days of detention, 

suspended, following an adjudication of curfew violation

because the curfew violation is an offense that is ineligible for 
In re B.L.D.

detention. We review a trial court’s interpretation of a statute for 

correctness. See State v. Graham, 2011 UT App 332, ¶ 14, 263 P.3d 

569 (“Questions of statutory interpretation are matters of law, 

which we review for correctness.”). The State concedes that the 

juvenile court erred by imposing detention for thirty days for a 

curfew violation, even if suspended, and agrees that the relief 

requested by B.L.D. on appeal should be granted. 

¶3 Under Utah law, a juvenile court may order detention 

only for “an act which if committed by an adult would be a 

criminal offense” or for “contempt of court.” Utah Code Ann. 

§ 78A-6-117(2)(f)(ii) (LexisNexis 2012). The curfew violation 

B.L.D. admitted is a juvenile status offense that applies only to a 

minor under the age of sixteen.1 See Davis County Code 

§ 9.08.010 (“It is unlawful for any minor under the age of sixteen 

(16) years to be in or on any public street, park, square or any 

public place between the hours of eleven p.m. and daylight.”). 

Because detention may only be ordered after adjudication for 

“an act which if committed by an adult would be a criminal 

offense” or for “contempt of court”, the juvenile court erred in 

ordering thirty days of detention, suspended. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion to reverse the 

juvenile court’s dispositional order committing B.L.D. to 

detention for thirty days, suspended, and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision.2

1. A juvenile status offense is a violation of the law that would 

not be a violation “but for the age of the offender.” Utah Admin. 

Code R547-13-3(2). 

2. In response to the State’s motion, B.L.D. requests that the 

juvenile court also be directed to “delete any and all references 

to the order of stayed detention in C.A.R.E.” While we decline to 

direct the juvenile court on this matter, the relief may be sought 

from the juvenile court in the proceedings after remand.

20140494-CA 2 2015 UT App 82
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1993
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                           6,676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,103)
<INVENTORY>                                     88,639
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,981
<PP&E>                                         125,565
<DEPRECIATION>                                (80,210)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,647
<BONDS>                                         14,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,757
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   272,274
<SALES>                                        209,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               209,369
<CGS>                                          137,082
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                77,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,575
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,935)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,335)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,335)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.37)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION**




**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**(Section
      1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
      the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wang
      Xin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: November
                19, 2008By:
            /s/
                Wang XinWang
                XinChief
                Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
LIMITED WAIVER AGREEMENT



          THIS LIMITED WAIVER AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 23rd day of January, 2002, by and between COGENTRIX ENERGY, INC., a North Carolina corporation (the "Corporation"), and JAMES R. PAGANO (the "Executive").

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

          The Corporation and the Executive are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 1999, as amended (the "Employment Agreement"), covering the terms and conditions of the Executive's employment with the Corporation.



          Subject to the execution and delivery of this Limited Waiver Agreement, the Corporation shall pay a performance bonus to the Executive in the amount of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) for 2001 (the "2001 Performance Bonus").  The Corporation and the Executive desire to limit the consideration of the 2001 Performance Bonus under certain provisions of the Employment Agreement, as set forth below.



          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:



          1.          Notwithstanding anything in the Employment Agreement to the contrary, in the event the payment described in paragraph 2 of that certain Amendment to Employment Agreement between the Corporation and the Executive dated November 12, 2001 becomes payable to the Executive during calendar year 2002, then solely for purposes of calculating the amount of the payment in such event (i.e., the calculation set forth in paragraph 4.a. of the Employment Agreement), the amount of the "performance bonus" component shall be the lesser of Amount A or Amount B, where:


Amount A is the actual amount of the 2001 Performance Bonus; and



Amount B is the excess (if any) of (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000) over (ii) the bonus paid to the Executive based on calendar year 2001 results under the Cogentrix Energy, Inc. Incentive Bonus Plan.





          2.          Except as expressly modified by this Limited Waiver Agreement, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.



          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Limited Waiver Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


COGENTRIX ENERGY, INC.



By:              /s/ DAVID J. LEWIS          

David J. Lewis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



           /s/ JAMES R. PAGANO              

James R. Pagano
CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Lexington Precision Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Warren DelanoWarren Delano
President and Director
(Co-Principal Executive Officer)
# !!!~ Protection Agency 

### SEP 1 6201 5 Ms. Susan Hedman Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region 5 77 West Jackson Blvd . Chicago, Illinois 60604 John R. Kasich, Governor MaryTaylor, Lt. Governor Craig W. Butler, Director

Re: Designation Recommendation for the General James M. Gavin Power Plant Area (including Kyger Creek Station) for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard Dear Administrator Hedman: On March 20, 2015, U.S. EPA notified states regarding a settled consent decree with Sierra Club that affects sources in certain areas yet to be designated under the 2010 1- hour sulfur dioxide (S02) national ambient air quality standard {NAAQS). This affects sources with 2012 emissions greater than 16,000 tons, or sources with emissions greater than 2,600 tons and an emission rate of at least 0.45 lbs S02/mmbtu ; unless a retirement from burning coal was announced by March 2, 2015. The letter identified the General James M. Gavin Power Plant and the William H. Zimmer Power Plant as subject to the consent decree requirements. U.S. EPA is allowing states an opportunity to subm i t recommendations on the designations of the areas around the subject facilities by September 18, 2015. The attached is Ohio's recommendation regarding the General James M. Gavin Plant area. Due to proximity and emissions level , Ohio EPA also included Kyger Creek Station in this analysis and intends for this analysis to also fulfill the requirements for this facility under U.S. EPA's Data Requirements Rule. Ohio's recommendation is based upon the 5-factor analysis outlined in U.S. EPA's March 20, 2015 memorandum Updated Guidance for Area Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Based upon this analysis, Ohio EPA is recommending Gallia County and a portion of Meigs County be designated as attainment for the 2010 1-hour S02 standard. This recommendation encompasses the following townships in Meigs County: Bedford , Columbia, Rutland, Salem , Salisbury, and Scipio. 50 WestTown Street • Suite 700 • P.O. Box 1049 • Columbus, OH 43216-1049 www.epa.ohio.gov • (614) 644-3020 • (614) 644-3184 (fax)As detailed under Factor 1 in the attached submittal, Ohio EPA modeled actual S02 emissions from the General James M. Gavin Plant and Kyger Creek Station for years 2012 through 2014. No exceedances of the standard were modeled inclusive of a conservative 10 ppb background concentration . This submittal consists of one (1) hard copy of the required documentation. An exact duplicate electronic version of the submittal in PDF format is available at http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dapc/SIP/so2 .aspx under the heading "Nonattainment Area Recommendation ." Ifyou have questions, please contact Jennifer Van Vlerah in our Division of Air Pollution Control at (614) 644-3696. Sincerely,



# r-~

Cc: Bob Hodanbosi , Chief, Division ofAir Pollution Control, Ohio EPA Enclosure
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. TODD RAE TARSELLI, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 417 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
ACCEPTED04-14-00897-CVFOURTH COURT OF APPEALSSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS4/10/2015 2:46:10 PMKEITH HOTTLECLERK