alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6833** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. REMONE LEON ROBINSON, a/k/a Ramone Leon Robinson , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00020

- RLV

- DSC

- 1; 5:13

- cv - 00005

- RLV )

Submitted : December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Remone Leon Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina; Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Remone Leon Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 2 8 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) 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) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showin g of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). 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 th e 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 Robinson has not made the requisit e showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the d ecisional process.

DISMISSED
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 407    |        |        |        |        | 188    | 200    | 196    | 195   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 145    | 127    | 117    | 137    | 144    | 152    | 177    | 161    | 128    | 117   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 127    | 158    | 122    | 126    | 99     | 68     | 83     | 86     | 95     | 83    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 74     | 49     | 84     | 66     | 52     | 40     | 56     | 43     | 35     | 45    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 41     | 28     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### BURTON v. STATE.

No. 23408.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1946.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1946.

*347R. Temple Dickson, of Sweetwater, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with violating the local option law in a dry area, and under a jury trial was fined $100.

He brings forward four bills of exception. First, he complains that the complaint and information charge no offense. They both appear to us to be in an often-approved form and properly charge the offense.

Again, in a further bill, complaint is made relative to a failure of the State to make out a case. To this we do not agree. It is clearly shown by proof that appellant sold one bottle of whisky to a Liquor Control Board Agent and received the money therefor in Mitchell County, and that same was a dry area.

Bill No. 3 complains because the trial court failed and refused to change the venue of this cause after a motion requesting such change had been offered and presented. Article 560, C.C.P., providing for a change of venue in certain cases, states: “Whenever in any case of *felony*the judge presiding shall be satisfied that a trial, alike fair and impartial to the accused and to the State”, etc. (Italics ours.)

It is observable therefrom that a change of venue was contemplated by the statute in felony cases only. See Duffield et al. v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 191, 43 S.W.2d 104; Patton v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 656, 65 S.W.2d 308.

It is further contended that the Liquor Control Board Agent, who testified to purchasing the liquor, was an accomplice or accessory, and that the trial court should have charged the jury relative to the law governing such accomplices and accessories. The statute itself provides that a conviction can be had in a liquor law violation in a dry area on the testimony of an accomplice. See Art. 666 — 23a, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.P.C.

We think the matters complained of evidence no error, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2396

_____________________________
D ER EK H IGHT , Appellant,

v.

L INDA C AMPBELL , R ODERICK C AMPBELL , I VY R ENEE W EBB , R ICKY C AMPBELL , R EGINALD C AMPBELL , R ONALD C AMPBELL and T ORONTO C AMPBELL , I n Re: Estat e of Kelly W. Campbell,

Appellee s

.

___________________________ O n appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Victor L. Hulslander , Judge

. February 22, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See Rose v. Sonson , 208 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 3 d DCA 2016).

R AY , B ILBREY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Taso M. Milonas of Taso M. Milonas, P.A., Sarasota and Judy

Ann Smith of Judy

- Ann S mith Law Firm, P.A., Jacksonville , for Appellant.
Jordan Hammer and Jeffrey H. Skatoff of Clark Skatoff P

. A

. , Palm Beach Gardens , for Appellee s Roderick Campbell, Ivy Renee Webb, Ricky Campbell, Reg inald Campbell, Ronald Campbell, and Toronto Campbell

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6833

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

REMONE LEON ROBINSON, a/k/a Ramone Leon Robinson,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00020-RLV-DSC-1; 

5:13-cv-00005-RLV)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Remone Leon Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, 

North Carolina; Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Remone Leon Robinson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2013) 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) (2006). 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) 

(2006). 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 Robinson 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
|                                                                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                   
|New Mexico - West Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                   
|New Mexico - West Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 273    | 116    | 904    | 458    | 443    | 470    | 6,278  | 297    | 202    | 145   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 13     | 841    | 0      | 224    | 0      | 718    | 87     | 4,284  | 327    | 134   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 965    | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6926
JERRY BAIG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CA-99-12-1) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Baig, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Baig appeals the district court’s order denying reliefon his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Baig v. United States , No. CA-99-12-1 (N.D.W. Va. June 30, 1999).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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           27160
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             121
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  7200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     118342
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           92555
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             92531
<LOANS>                                         433047
<ALLOWANCE>                                       5697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  692781
<DEPOSITS>                                      609696
<SHORT-TERM>                                      2787
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               4149
<LONG-TERM>                                       1918
<COMMON>                                          7952
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       66279
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  692781
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  27747
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 9240
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  1490
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 38477
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               15087
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               15278
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            23199
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     1225
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  16345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9197
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        6514
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6514
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.96
<LOANS-NON>                                       1359
<LOANS-PAST>                                      1353
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  5038
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     1095
<RECOVERIES>                                       529
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 5697
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              5697
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23





                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent  public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the  incorporation by
reference of our report  included in this quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 1998, of Southern California Edison Company into the
previously filed Registration Statements which follow:



         Registration Form          File No.                 Effective Date


              Form S-3              33-53288                 November 6, 1992
              Form S-3              33-50251                 September 21, 1993
              Form S-3              33-59001                 May 15, 1995
              Form S-3              333-00497                February 2, 1996



                                                     ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



October 29, 1998
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(B)


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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of SouthTrust Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alton
E. Yother, the principal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 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 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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




By:  /s/ Alton E. Yother
    ----------------------------------------------
Alton E. Yother
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Controller
August 13, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SouthTrust Corporation and will be retained by SouthTrust
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Appendix E 

ARB Board Meeting Agenda and Public Hearing Transcript
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Concrete Casting
      Incorporated (the "COMPANY"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Cordell Henrie, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
      Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify,
      to
      my knowledge that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 780(d)); and





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








/s/
      Cordell Henrie





Cordell
      Henrie


Principal
      Executive Officer


Principal
      Financial Officer





Dated:
      August 20, 2007





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


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(b)


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



In connection with the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K of TRW
Automotive Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
S. Cantie, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.





Date: March 29, 2004                /s/ Joseph S. Cantie
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Joseph S. Cantie
                                    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)