alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles Erwin ALEXANDER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 16025.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 27, 1979.

Stephen R. McCaughey, Richard G. Mac-Dougall, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, Dennis L. Draney, Duchesne County Atty., Duchesne, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction of aggravated sexual assault in violation of Section 76 — 5—405(l)(a)(ii), U.C.A. (1953), as amended. The appellant was convicted as an aider and abettor of another who actually committed a rape.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial judge, acting as the trier of fact, should have found appellant not guilty on the ground that he acted under coercion and threat of force to his person. Specifically, the appellant relies upon Section 76-2-302 U.C.A. (1953), as amended, which provides as follows:

> (1) A person is not guilty of an offense when he engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was coerced to do so by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force upon him or a third person, which force or threatened force a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would not have resisted.

> (2) The defense of compulsion provided by this section shall be unavailable to a person who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly places himself in a situation in which it is probable that he will be subjected to duress.

The appellant contends that this provision incorporates a “subjective” standard as to his perception of the “threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force upon him.” *891The State on the other hand contends that an “objective” standard should be applied in resolving that issue.

The record does not indicate which standard the trial court used in determining the issue. On the basis of the present record, there is no need to determine which construction of Section 76-2-302 is the proper one. The record is replete with evidence that would sustain, if not compel, a finding that the appellant was not coerced or threatened with immediate use of unlawful physical force.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Wayne W. Mills, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on form 10-K/A for the year ended December31, 2003 of Entrx Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: April 28, 2004 /s/ Wayne W. Mills  By: Wayne W. Mills President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6433

ROBERT JOSEPH SLAVEK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HINKLE, Warden Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-03-1439) Submitted: December 28, 2005 Decided: February 24, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Joseph Slavek, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Joseph Slavek seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Slavek has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Slavek’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Filed: April 27, 2005 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4253
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus MOHAMAD YOUSSEF HAMMOUD, a/k/a Ali Abousaleh, a/k/a Ali Albousaleh, Defendant - Appellant,

_____________________________________________ CENTERFOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; NATIONAL COALITION TO PROTECT POLITICAL FREEDOM; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, Amici Supporting Appellant.

ORDER

_______________ This court , sitting en banc, previously affirmed Mohamad Youssef Hammoud’s convictions and sentence. See United States v. Hammoud , 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Subsequently, the Su preme Court granted certiorari, vacated our decision, a n d remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker ,125 S. C t. 738 (2005). See United States v. Hammoud , 125 S. Ct.

1051 (2005). Because the order of the Supreme Court does not affect our resolution of Hammoud’s challenges to his convictions and the calculation of his guideline range, we reinstate those portions of
our prior opinion. See Hammoud , 381 F.3d at 325-44, 354-57. However, the sentence imposed on Hammoud exceeded the maximum sentence authorized by the jury verdict alone, see United States v. Hug hes , No. 03-4172, 2005 WL 628224, at *5 (4th Cir. Mar. 16, 2005), and the Government cannot p rove t hat this error, which Hammoud preserved in the district court, did not affect Hammoud’s substantial rights, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). We therefore vacate Hammoud’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the advisory guidelines regime set forth in Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 756- 57, 764-65. Enteredat the d irection of Chief Judge Wilkins with the
concurrences of Judges Widener, Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Williams, Michael, Motz, Traxler, King, Gregory, Shedd, and Duncan.

For the Court
/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 25, 2015.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 25, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A1197. GREGORY G. SMITH v. MARMOT MOUNTAIN, LLC..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
DANIEL WINDSOR,

Appellant,

v.

MARTIN HASEK, individually; 

SANDRA HASEK, individually; 

YNSAR, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, d/b/a DOCK 

HOPPERS WATERFRONT BAR 

AND GRILL; and NORTH 

LAGOON PARTNERS, INC., a 

Florida corporation,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3701

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 9, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

Albert J. Stopka, III, Lynn Haven, for Appellant.

Clifford W. Sanborn, Panama City, Albert C. Penson of Penson & Padgett, 

Tallahassee, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS and WETHERELL, JJ., and SOUD, ADRIAN G., ASSOCIATE 

JUDGE, CONCUR.
10K


EXHIBIT
      18



















March
      27, 2008




Board
      of Directors and
      Stockholders


The
      Bureau of National Affairs,
      Inc.


Arlington,
      Virginia




Ladies
      and
      Gentlemen:




As
      stated in Note 16 to the consolidated
      financial statements of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (the Company)
      for
      the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company changed its method of accounting
      for sales commissions related to subscription sales from deferring and expensing
      over the subscription period to expensing as incurred and states that the newly
      adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances. The new method
      of accounting results in a more meaningful presentation of the Company's assetsas a result of changes
      in
      the Company’s commission program.In
      connection with our audit of the
      above mentioned financial statements, we have evaluated the circumstances and
      the business judgment and planning which formulated the Company’s basis to make
      the change in accounting principle.




It
      should be understood that criteria
      have not been established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board for
      selecting from among the alternative accounting principles that exist in this
      area. Further, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants has not
      established the standards by which an auditor can evaluate the preferability
      of
      one accounting principle among a series of alternatives. However, for purposes
      of the Company’s compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange
      Commission, we are furnishing this letter.




Based
      on our audit, we concur with
      management’s judgment that the newly adopted accounting principle described in
      Note 16 is preferable in the circumstances. In formulating this position, we
      are
      relying on management’s business planning and judgment, which we do not find to
      be unreasonable.




Very
      truly
      yours,




/s/BDO
      Seidman, LLP


BDO
      Seidman, LLP


62
Exhibit 31-1**CERTIFICATION**I, Michael A. Lubin, certify that: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 amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: April 12, 2007     /*s*/ Michael A. Lubin     Michael A. Lubin
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7063

GENERAL LEE WILLIAMS, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE KENWORTHY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00631-WLO)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 26, 2007 

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

General Lee Williams, III, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe

DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

To the extent that Williams seeks to raise new claims in his

informal brief, these claims are not properly before this court.

See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

General Lee Williams, III, seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has

not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny Williams’

motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13471

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00035-WS-N-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHAWN EPHISIAN TAYLOR, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

(April 9, 2015)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Ratliff, appointed counsel for Shawn Taylor, in this direct criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 

Case: 14-13471 Date Filed: 04/09/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Taylor’s conviction and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-13471 Date Filed: 04/09/2015 Page: 2 of 2
<Page>
                                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent
Public Accountants" in the Statement of Additional Information and use of our
report dated February 17, 2000 on the financial statements of Fortis Benefits
Insurance Company in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 (Form N-4 No.
333-79701) to the Registration Statement and related Prospectus and Statement
of Additional Information of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company for the
registration of flexible premium deferred combination variable and fixed
annuity contracts.


Minneapolis, Minnesota                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
April 17, 2002
No. 03-14-00071-CV

Austin Independent School District, § IN THE THIRD 

Appellant, § 

 § 

v. § COURT OF APPEALS 

 § 

Andrew Lofters, § 

Appellee. § AUSTIN, TEXAS 

 

APPELLEE’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO

FILE FOR MOTION FOR REHEARING

________________________________________________________________

Appellee, Andrew Lofters, asks the Court to extend the time to file the motion 

for rehearing.

A. Introduction

1. Appellant is Austin Independent School District; Appellee is Andrew 

Lofters.

2. This motion is filed within the 15-day period to file a motion to extend the 

time to file a motion for rehearing, as required by Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 49.8.

3. The parties have agreed to this motion.

1 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00071-CV

4881151

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/14/2015 12:10:43 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/14/2015 12:10:43 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
B. Argument & Authorities

4. The Court has the authority under Rule 49.8 to extend the time for a party to 

file a motion for rehearing.

5. Appellee’s motion for rehearing is due on April 16, 2015.

6. Appellee requests an additional 12 days to file the motion for rehearing, 

extending the time until April 28, 2015.

7. No extension has been granted to extend the time to file the motion for 

rehearing.

8. Appellee needs additional time to file the motion for rehearing because 

Appellee’s counsel has an unusual heavy docket schedule. Appellee’s request to 

extend time is for good cause and is not intended to delay these proceedings. 

C. Conclusion/Prayer

9. For these reasons, Appellee asks the Court to grant an extension of time to 

file the motion for rehearing until April 28, 2015.

 Respectfully submitted,

 

 Potter Bledsoe, LLP

 ___/s/ Gary L. Bledsoe___

 Gary L. Bledsoe

 State Bar No. 02476500

 garybledsoe@sbcglobal.net

2
 Harry G. Potter III

 State Bar No. 16175300

 hpotter@potterbledsoe.com

 316 West 12th Street, Suite 307

 Austin, Texas 78701

 Tel: (512) 322-9992

 Fax: (512) 322-0840

 Attorneys for Andrew Lofters

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that my office has conferred with Jonathan G. Bush by telephone, and 

he has agreed and is unopposed to Appellee’s motion to extend time to file for 

motion for rehearing until April 28, 2015.

 ___/s/ Gary L. Bledsoe___

 Gary L. Bledsoe

3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served 

on counsel for Austin Independent School District today, April 14, 2015, through 

the court's electronic filing system and by email to the following addresses:

 Jonathan G. Brush

 jbrush@rmgllp.com

 Richard A. Morris

 rmorris@rmgllp.com

 Rogers, Morris & Grover, L.L.P.

 5718 Westheimer, Suite 1200

 Houston, Texas 77057

 Tel: (713) 960-6000

 Fax: (713) 960-6025

 Attorneys for Austin Independent School District

 ___/s/ Gary L. Bledsoe___

 Gary L. Bledsoe

4