alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CLD-105 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3763

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ARTHUR D’AMARIO,

 Appellant

____________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Criminal No. 1-06-cr-00112-001)

District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 31, 2013

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 13, 2013)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM

Arthur D’Amario appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion to transfer his 

supervision to the District of Rhode Island. For the reasons below, we will affirm the 

District Court’s order.
2

D’Amario is serving three years of supervised release after completing a sentence 

of 84 months in prison for threatening a federal judge. See United States v. D’Amario, 

330 F. App’x 409 (3d Cir. 2009). In September 2012, he filed a counseled motion 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3605 seeking to have his supervision transferred to the District of 

Rhode Island. The District Court denied the motion, and D’Amario filed a pro se notice 

of appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Section 3605 provides that a 

District Court may transfer jurisdiction over a defendant on supervised release to any 

other district with the concurrence of the receiving district. D’Amario has not shown that 

the District Court for the District of Rhode Island has concurred in the transfer. Because 

the District of Rhode Island has not concurred, the District Court did not err in denying 

D’Amario’s motion. 

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the 

appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm 

the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. D’Amario’s motion for 

summary action is denied.
19449

#### State v. Saya

Affirmed
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12

- 10628

DONN DEVERAL MARTIN,

Petitioner

– Appellant

v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent

– Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:11

- CV

- 447

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JONES , CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Donn Deveral Martin, Texas prisoner # 1454022, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for federal habeas corpus relief. The district court dismiss ed Martin’s petition for habeas relief on procedural grounds. T he district court

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 12-10628 Document: 00512599117 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2014No. 12

- 10628 adopted the magistrate judge’s conclusion that because Martin’s convictions became final on August 11, 2009, Martin’s “petition , deemed filed on June 23, 2011, is untimely” u nder the one

- year statute of limitations prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The district court did not decide or consider the merits of
Martin’s constitutional claims.
We then denied Martin’s motion for a COA , noting that Martin had not shown “that jurist s of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Supreme Court vacated judgment on December 6, 2013, and remanded this case for reconsideration in light of its opinion in McQuiggin v.
Perkins , 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013). There , the Supreme Court held, “actual innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass [if] the impediment is . . . expiration of the statute of limitations.” I d. at 1928. In light of Perkins , this Court finds “ that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling .” Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

. Moreover, because the district c ourt understandably focused on the statute

- of

- limitations issue, we do not have an adequate record on the merits to determine whether Martin’s actual

- innocence claim was
meritless. See Houser v. Dretke , 395 F.3d 560 , 562 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly,

we GRANT the COA and REMAND this case for reconsideration of Martin’s
actual

- innocence claim in light of Perkins

. As to Martin’s other claims, we
DENY Martin’s COA. We express no opinion on the ultim ate disposition of Martin’s § 2254 petition.

2 Case: 12-10628 Document: 00512599117 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
J-S28017-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MATTHEW JOSEPH PETERS, 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1787 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, July 29, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-28-CR-0000586-2014.

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JUNE 28, 2018

Matthew Joseph Peters seeks to appeal, nunc pro tunc, a July 29, 2015 

judgment of sentence. The Commonwealth agreed that Peters’ trial counsel 

was ineffective for missing his original, 30-day window to appeal. However, 

in its 1925(a) Opinion, the PCRA court questioned, sua sponte, its jurisdiction 

due to the PCRA’s time bar. After reinstating Peters’ direct appeal, the learned 

trial judge correctly realized that, because Peters had not filed his PCRA action

until 56 days beyond the 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) deadline, the PCRA court 

lacked jurisdiction to reinstate his appellate rights, nunc pro tunc. 

Upon consideration of the 1925(a) Opinion, it is 

ORDERED that the November 9, 2017 Notice of Appeal is QUASHED.
J-S28017-18

- 2 -

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/28/2018
**Exhibit 31.01**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Patrick W. Cavanagh, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this report onForm 10-K of Williams Controls Inc.; 

     2. Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure control and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

     5. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors: 

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting.
March 20, 1998

20672

#### State v. Kaoihana

Affirmed
ANIMAL CARE AID

Questions? Email us at CenterforAnimalWelfare@usda.gov 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Animal Care • AC-19-008

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Issued June 2019 • Reviewed February 2024

Enrichment Devices for Primates 

This Animal Care Aid is part of a series developed to help with promoting psychological well-being in primates. 

Topics covered in the series include social grouping, supporting species-typical activities, and special considerations. 

Enrichment devices do not need to be 

complicated to be effective. In fact, 

some of the best enrichment devices 

are very simple and inexpensive. 

DID YOU KNOW?

Devices that primates 

ignore are not 

enriching. Regularly 

changing out 

enrichment devices 

helps to keep things 

interesting.

PRACTICAL TIP

WRITE IT DOWN! 

Keeping written 

records can help you 

see which strategies 

are working and which 

are not. It also helps 

you quickly spot any 

risks or other concerns, 

so you can make 

sure the enrichment 

provided is safe. 

Different Primates, 

Different 

Enrichment

The best enrichment 

devices will vary by 

species. Some explore 

with their hands, while 

others explore with their 

noses. Some enjoy complex enrichment 

devices, while other species need simple 

items. And some species are strong and 

destructive, so they need very 

sturdy enrichment devices. 

Effective enrichment also varies 

by the individual primate. Each 

primate is different and finds 

different things interesting, so the 

best enrichment for your primates 

will depend on what they prefer.

Natural Environments

Some facilities offer complex natural 

environments for their primates. Such 

environments can 

support exploration 

and may not need 

other enrichment 

devices as long as 

there is enough variety 

to keep primates busy.

Enrichment devices, sometimes called 

“toys” or “manipulanda,” are one part of a 

comprehensive enrichment program. See 

Supporting Natural Behaviors in Primates

Aid for more information. Enrichment 

devices are critical to support exploring, 

playing, and problem-solving behaviors.

Finding the Best 

Enrichment Devices

A great enrichment 

device can be almost 

anything that interests 

your primate. Some of 

the best items are born 

out of creativity, observation, 

and chance. Offering several 

items, and paying close 

attention to how your primates 

respond, will give you insight 

into what they find interesting.

Here are a few simple ideas 

that provide effective enrichment:

l RECYCLED ITEMS—cardboard boxes or

tubes, magazines, broom heads, plastic jugs, 

construction spools

l WOOD—hardwood branches or sticks, 

browse, discs

l SENSORY ITEMS—various textures, scents, 

colors, and sounds

l TOYS—those designed for young children, 

dogs, or birds may be appropriate for some

primates. There are also toys marketed

for primates.

Tools For Supporting 

Species Typical Activity
# C_2019399EN.01001901.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/19

---

Appeal brought on 22 November 2018 by EM Research Organization, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2018 in Case T-180/17: EM Research Organization v EUIPO - Christoph Fischer e.a

(Case C-728/18 P)

(2019/C 399/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: EM Research Organization, Inc. (represented by: J. Liesegang, N. Lang, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Christoph Fischer GmbH, Ole Weinkath, Multikraft Productions- und Handels GmbH, Phytodor AG

By order of 25 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and that EM Research Organization, Inc. shall bear its own costs.

---
# C_2019164EN.01004901.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/49

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2019 — SKS Import Export v Commission

(Case T-239/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Free movement of capital - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (AML/CTF) - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/212 - Inclusion of Tunisia on the list of high-risk third countries - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 164/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société Kammama Saber (SKS) Import Export (Sousse Jaouhara, Tunisia) (represented by: H. Chelly, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, A. Bouquet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/212 of 13 December 2017, amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 supplementing Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards adding Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, and Tunisia to the table in point I of the Annex (OJ 2018 L 41, p. 4).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Société Kammama Saber (SKS) Import Export shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Société Kammama Saber (SKS) Import Export shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
#### State v. Harris

22408

03/22/2000

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 667 

Expressing support for designation of September as ‘‘National Brain 

Aneurysm Awareness Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2016 

Mr. TIBERI (for himself and Mr. NEAL) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of September as 

‘‘National Brain Aneurysm Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas an unruptured brain aneurysm can lead to double 

vision, vision loss, loss of sensation, weakness, loss of balance, uncoordination, and speech problems; 

Whereas a brain aneurysm is often discovered when it ruptures and causes a subarachnoid hemorrhage; 

Whereas a subarachnoid hemorrhage can lead to brain damage, hydrocephalus, stroke, and death; 

Whereas each year, more than 30,000 people in the United 

States suffer from ruptured brain aneurysms and 40 percent of these people die as a result; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 667 IH 

Whereas annually, between 3,000 and 4,500 people in the 

United States with ruptured brain aneurysms die before 

reaching the hospital; 

Whereas a number of advancements have been made in recent years regarding the detection of aneurysms, including the computerized tomography (CT) scan, the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test, and the cerebral 

arteriogram, and early detection can save lives; 

Whereas various research studies are currently being conducted in the United States in order to better understand, prevent, and treat brain aneurysms; 

Whereas organizations, such as the Brain Aneurysm Foundation, serve as global leaders for brain aneurysm awareness, education, support, advocacy, and research funding; 

and 

Whereas the month of September would be an appropriate 

month to designate as ‘‘National Brain Aneurysm Awareness Month’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of a ‘‘National 

3 Brain Aneurysm Awareness Month’’; and 

4 (2) continues to support research to prevent, 

5 detect, and treat brain aneurysms. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________
No. 02

- 22

- 00157

- CR

________ ______ ________ _____

On Appeal from County Cr imina l Court N o. 4 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. CR

- 2021

- 03653

- D

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam M emora ndum Opinion 

### B OBBY 

### L YNN 

### P RESTON 

### J R



### . , Appellant

V



### .

T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Bo bby Lynn Preston Jr. appeals his conviction for mi sdemea nor

dr i ving while intoxic ated. On October 4 , 202 2
, and October 25, 20 22, we notified
Appellan t by letter that the tria l

- court clerk resp onsible for preparing the record in
this appeal had informed this court that Appellant had made no arran gements to pay

fo r the clerk ’ s record as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2). In

our notice, we warned that we would dismis s t he appeal for want of prosecution
unless, within ten days, A ppellant arranged to pay for the clerk ’ s rec ord and provided

this court wit h proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(b), 44.3.
Appellant ha s not made payment arrangements for the cle rk ’ s record; thus, we dismiss

his appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).
Appella nt must pay al l costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Do Not Publ ish Tex. R. App. P. 4 7.2 (b)

Delivered : Dec emb er 8, 2022
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
      ended June 30, 2009 of Belden & Blake
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 officer 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:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):
   Date:August 13, 2009
    By:
    /s/ James M. VanderhiderJames M. Vanderhider, President, Chief Financial
      Officer and Director
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 6
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Neil DIXON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13649.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 11, 1975.

Larry R. Keller, Salt Lake Legal Defender Association, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant,

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

TUCKETT, Justice:

The defendant was found guilty in the District Court of Salt Lake County of the crime of robbery in the second degree. Defendant is here seeking a reversal.

At about midnight on December 8, 1973, Jack D. Patterson was a clerk employed at a grocery store in Kearns, Salt Lake County, Utah. At that time Patterson was held up and a sum of money taken from the store. Patterson called the sheriff’s office and reported the incident and also described the man involved as a black man with a nylon stocking over his face to his nose and wearing a green field jacket and a blue stocking cap. The man was also described as having a scraggly beard and as carrying a .22 caliber pearl-handled revolver. The man fled on foot.

The report of the occurrence and the description of the man was relayed over the sheriff’s radio network. David Kelly, a deputy sheriff testified that he was observing traffic at 3500 South Redwood Road when he saw a passenger in an automobile who was black. Deputy Kelly followed the automobile some distance while he awaited for other police vehicles to arrive at the scene. Kelly stopped the vehicle and observed that the driver and the passenger were black men and that the passenger had a scraggly beard and also a green coat. The two men were ordered out of the car and a further search of the vehicle was made and the blue stocking cap and a .22 caliber pearl-handled revolver was found. Defendant was placed under arrest and taken to the sheriff’s office.

During the trial the defendant testified in his own behalf and therein stated that he had been to the store which had been robbed during the evening but denied that he had committed the robbery and he also *1302testified that the revolver found in the vehicle belonged to his grandmother and that it was not in operating condition.

The main thrust of the defendant’s appeal is to the effect that items taken from the vehicle on the night of the robbery should have been excluded as being the result of an unlawful arrest. Defendant relies on the case of Wrightson v. United States1 as supporting his position. However, the facts in that case are dissimilar to the facts in the case before us. In this case the officer relied upon the fact that the defendant fit a general description of a robbery suspect he had received from the sheriff’s dispatcher. The officer under the circumstances had probable cause to stop the vehicle and to arrest the defendant.2 The search of the vehicle having been made in connection with the arrest, it was a lawful search.

The record amply supports the verdict of the jury. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

HENRIOD, C. J., and CROCKETT, ELLETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

1

. 95 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 222 F.2d 556.

2

. United States v. Saldana (10th Cir.) 453 F.2d 352.
#### State v. Mills.

18031

1/31/97

Affirmed
#### State v. Anzai

17374

10/18/94

Affirmed