alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7044

GEORGE FREDERICK HATFIELD, II, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-04-154; CR-03-56) Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Frederick Hatfield, II, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: George Frederick Hatfield, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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 that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-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 Hatfield has not made the requisite showing. Accord ingly, we deny his 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
#### DILLARD v. STATE.

No. 24190.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1948.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1949.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the murder of T. H. Davis, Jr., without malice, and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exception and without a statement of facts. We find quite a list of exceptions taken to the court’s charge but are unable to appraise their value in the state of the record as we have it.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | This                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended                May                31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Franco, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Following denial of his motion to suppress, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. His sole argument on appeal is that the court committed reversible error in failing to comply with CPL 710.60 (6), which requires it to "set forth on the record its findings of facts, its conclusions of law and the reason for its determination.” The argument is without merit. County Court stated that it "reviewed the search warrant, supporting documents and transcripts in support thereof, and this Court finds that there was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.” Although the court’s statement was terse *(cf., People v Denti,*44 AD2d 44, 47), we find that it was in substantial compliance with the statutory requirement. Moreover, it is evident from the record before us that defendant was not entitled to suppression *(see, People v Alfinito,*16 NY2d 181, 186; *People v Brady,*16 NY2d 186, 189; *People v Gonzalez,*116 AD2d 661, 662; *People v Russo,*45 AD2d 1040). County Court properly concluded that the search warrant was issued upon probable cause. The informant’s sworn statement was properly considered by the suppression court and need not have been disclosed to defendant *(see, People v Peterson,*159 AD2d 983; *People v Diaz,*147 AD2d 912, *lv denied*73 NY2d 1014; *People v Delgado,*134 AD2d 951, *lv denied*71 NY2d 895). The issuing Magistrate properly relied upon the sworn statement of the informant who was present when the warrant was issued and this statement was sufficient to establish probable cause *(see, People v Sullivan,*56 NY2d 378, 384; *People v Bartolomeo,*53 NY2d 225, 233-234; *People v Taylor,*140 AD2d 964, *revd on other grounds*73 NY2d 683). (Appeal from judgment of Oneida *958County Court, Murad, J.—criminal possession of controlled substance, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 98-CP-00060-SCT**  **MYRON VINCENT ROWE**

**v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI**  **ON MOTION FOR REHEARING** DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/16/97 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN H. WHITFIELD COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED - 04/15/1999 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 01/25/1999 MANDATE ISSUED: 4/22/99

**EN BANC.**

**WALLER, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:** ¶1. The Harrison County Grand Jury indicted Myron Vincent Rowe on October 13, 1994, for the murder of Robert, a transient. Rowe moved for dismissal of the murder charge against him on April 12, 1995, based on his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Rowe argued the State had failed to prosecute him within 270 days as required by law. Judge Whitfield denied Rowe's motion on June 15, 1995. That same day, Rowe pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to eighteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. ¶2. Rowe petitioned for post-conviction relief on December 9, 1996. Rowe argued his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated because the State failed to bring him to trial within 270 days as required by law. Rowe's petition for post-conviction relief was denied December 19, 1997. Rowe timely appealed. ¶3. This Court has found that a guilty plea waives the right to a speedy trial, whether that right is of constitutional or statutory origin. **Anderson v. State** , 577 So. 2d 390, 391-92 (Miss. 1991). ¶4. In **Anderson**the Court stated: [W]e have recognized that a valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional rights or defects which are incident to trial. **Ellzey v. State** , 196 So. 2d 889, 892 (Miss. 1967). We havegenerally included in this class "those [rights] secured by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the Constitution of the United States, as well as those comparable rights secured by Sections 14 and 26, Article 3, of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890." **Sanders v. State** , 440 So. 2d 278, 283 (Miss. 1983); see also **Jefferson v. State** , 556 So. 2d 1016, 1019 (Miss. 1989). We take this opportunity to specifically include in that class of waivable or forfeitable rights the right to a speedy trial, whether of constitutional or statutory origin

. **Anderson** , 577 So. 2d at 391-92. (emphasis added). ¶5. In the case sub judice , Rowe's guilty plea was given voluntarily. As stated in the **Anderson** decision, the right to a speedy trial is waivable. Therefore, the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief was proper. As a result, Rowe's motion for rehearing is denied. ¶6.**MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED. PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, McRAE, SMITH AND MILLS,**  **JJ., CONCUR. COBB, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.**
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423-LA; ASLBP No. 00-783-09-LA] 

                    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and Sections 2.105, 2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717, 2.721 of the Commission's Regulations, all as amended, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding:                 

## Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 

                    This Board is being established pursuant to the request for hearing submitted by the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone and the Star Foundation. The request was filed in response to a license amendment request of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3. A notice of consideration of the amendment request, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for hearing was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 65 FR 48,744, 48,754 (Aug. 9, 2000).                 

The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: 

Administrative Judge Ann M. Young, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

Administrative Judge Thomas S. Moore, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

Administrative Judge Charles N. Kelber, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 
      ( print page 57628)    
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the Judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.701. 

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of September 2000. 

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, 

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. 

[FR Doc. 00-24578 Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Presidential Documents

57079

Federal Register

Vol. 65, No. 183

Wednesday, September 20, 2000

Title 3—

The President

Executive Order 13167 of September 15, 2000

Amendment to Executive Order 13147, Increasing the Membership of the White House Commission on Complementary

and Alternative Medicine Policy

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), and in order to increase the membership of the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative

Medicine Policy from not more than 15 members to up to 20 members,

it is hereby ordered that the second sentence of section 1 of Executive

Order 13147 of May 7, 2000, is amended by deleting ‘‘not more than 15’’

and inserting ‘‘up to 20’’ in lieu thereof.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 15, 2000.

œ–

[FR Doc. 00–24364

Filed 9–19–00; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4582 

To extend the suspension of duty on staple fibers of viscose rayon, not 

carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on staple fibers of viscose 

rayon, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for 

spinning. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. STAPLE FIBERS OF VISCOSE RAYON, NOT 

4 CARDED, COMBED, OR OTHERWISE PROC5 ESSED FOR SPINNING. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.59 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 staple fibers of viscose rayon, not carded, combed, or oth9 erwise processed for spinning) is amended by striking the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4582 IH

1 date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

2 2015’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: 7/30/15

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Madonna Narvaez, R10, AWT-150

SUBJECT: Series of Conference calls held with R10 states to update status of CPP actions

SUMMARY

In June, 2015, the region held calls with our states on the Clean Power Plan. The first call 

was requested by Oregon DEQ. We then held calls with the rest of the states. Only the process 

and expected outreach for the final Carbon Power Plan rule were discussed. The Carbon Power 

Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

6/23

EPA: Kate Kelly, Madonna Narvaez, Debra Suzuki

ODEQ: David Collier, Colin McConnaha

6/26

EPA: Kate Kelly

ADEC: Denise Koch, Director, Air Quality Program

6/30

EPA: Kate Kelly, Madonna Narvaez

IDEQ: Tiffany Floyd, Air Quality Director, Mary Anderson, Carl Brown

7/06

EPA: Kate Kelly

Washington Dept. of Ecology: Stu Clark, Air Quality Program Director
#### Daniel Dashman, Respondent, v Really Useful Theatre Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered June 2, 1989, which denied the defendants’ motion to change venue from Bronx County to New York County, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured when a portion of a theatrical stage on which he was standing collapsed. The plaintiff *326and all the defendants, except for Hudson Scenic Studios, Inc. (Hudson), are residents of New York County, where the accident occurred. Nevertheless, venue was properly laid in Bronx County where the defendant Hudson had its principal place of business (CPLR 503 [a], [c]).

A motion to change venue based upon the convenience of material witnesses pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) must be supported by an affidavit that specifies the names and addresses of the witnesses, the essence of their expected testimony and the inconvenience that would be imposed if they were required to testify in the county of original venue *(Coles v LaGuardia Med. Group,*161 AD2d 166; *Weiss v Saks Fifth Ave.,*157 AD2d 475; *Rosa v Shavelson,*149 AD2d 371). The moving papers did not make the requisite showing. Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Kassal, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Year End Report On Form 10-KSB of
51148, Inc. for the Year Ended January 31, 2006, I, Scott Raleigh,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of 51148, Inc.
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

1.   Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended January 31, 2006,
     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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
     ended January 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
     financial condition and results of operations of 51148, Inc.


Dated: March 10, 2006

51148 INC.


By: /s/ Scott Raleigh
Chief Executive Officer
And Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the


Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): September 13, 2018


1-6196Commission filenumberPIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.(a North Carolina corporation)56-556998IRS EmployerIdentification No.


4720 Piedmont Row Drive


Charlotte, North Carolina 28210


704-364-3120





Registrant, State of Incorporation or Organization,


Address of Principal Executive Offices, and Telephone Number





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240. 13e-4(c))


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


Emerging growth company o


If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. o











---










Item 1.01.  Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.


On September 13, 2018, Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (the “Corporation”) entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Term Loan Credit Agreement, dated as of September 13, 2018, among Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc., the lenders listed therein, U.S. Bank National Association, as Administrative Agent, and PNC Bank, National Association, Bank of New York Mellon and KeyBank, National Association, as Co-Documentation Agents (the “Amendment”).  The original credit agreement was described in the Corporation’s Form 8-K filed on June 14, 2017.  The Amendment increased the aggregate commitments under the facility to $350,000,000, and extended the maturity date of the facility to September 12, 2019.  The proceeds of loans made under the amended credit agreement will be used by the Corporation for its general corporate purposes.





The disclosure in this Item 1.01 is qualified in its entirety by the provisions of the Amendment, which will be filed as an exhibit to the Corporation’s next Form 10-Q Quarterly Report.











Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.Date:September 19, 2018By:/s/ Robert T. Lucas IIIName:Robert T. Lucas IIITitle:Assistant Secretary
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Amecs, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year end of December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Alexei Gavriline, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   

Dated this 9th day of March, 2007.

ALEXEI GAVRILINEAlexei GavrilineChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer






























---