alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-51173 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ZOEL ALEXIS SANCHEZ, also known as Zoel A. Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-2498-1
Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Zoel Alexis Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sanchez has not filed a response and has b e e n r e m oved from the United States. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolo u s i s sue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 21, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-51173 Document: 00511963920 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012No. 11-51173

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED in part as frivolous, see 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2, and in part as moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis , 483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir. 20 07).

2 Case: 11-51173 Document: 00511963920 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2012
Exhibit
32.2

# 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 of Storage Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 27, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Robert S. Kocol, 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.

/s/ ROBERT S. KOCOL 
Robert S. Kocol Chief Financial Officer August 8, 2003
#### Ridgelawn Realty Co., Inc., Appellant, *v.*Albert A. Corci, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

November 8, 1957.

*287
      *Julian V. Gar abba*and *Lillian B. Kaplan*for appellant.

*Willia/m J. Williams*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendant’s claim that the clause reading *“*Subject to my attorney’s approval,” contained in the binder agreement, made the formal contract, entered into later by the defendant and the purchaser, subject to such approval, raises, at best, a question of fact with respect to whether the parties intended the aforesaid *“*approval ” clause to apply only to the terms and conditions specifically contained in the binder agreement, or whether they intended it to apply to all the terms of the sale as embodied in a later formal contract. Intent, where the language is ambiguous, constitutes a question of fact. *(Italian Benevolent Inst.*v. *Elaine Co.,*240 App. Div. 196; *Piedmont Hotel Co.*v. *Nettleton Co.,*263 N. Y. 25, 30; see, also, *Dowdle*v. *Richards,*2 A D 2d 486.) Such question cannot be decided on a motion for summary judgment.

The question whether the failure of title to pass was sufficient to bar recovery by plaintiff must await the determination of the question of fact arising out of the construction of the “ approval ” clause in the binder agreement.

The order and judgment should be reversed on the law and facts, with $30 costs to plaintiff, and motion denied.

Pette, Hart and Di Gtovanna, JJ., concur.

Order and judgment reversed, etc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1028

CEDRICK EURON DRAPER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; SECRETARY OF THE 

COMMONWEALTH,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00567-HEH)

Submitted: May 13, 2019 Decided: May 21, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedrick Euron Draper, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cedrick Euron Draper appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss 

the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Draper v. Virginia, No. 

3:18-cv-00567-HEH (E.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2018). We deny the motion for mediation and 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Standard
Register Company financial statements for the nine months ended September 27,
1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                          36,351
<SECURITIES>                                       834
<RECEIVABLES>                                  289,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,066
<INVENTORY>                                    167,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               494,418
<PP&E>                                         565,078
<DEPRECIATION>                                 193,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 978,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          171,377
<BONDS>                                        234,630
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,110
<OTHER-SE>                                     486,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   978,931
<SALES>                                      1,016,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,018,359
<CGS>                                          643,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  942,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,161
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 65,842
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,566
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,276
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1464

SAM WRIGHT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ETHEL WRIGHT;

DARREL S. PARKER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-2083-A)

Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sam Wright, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ethel Wright, Washington, D.C.,

Appellee; Mary L. Wilson, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL, D.C.,

Michael Alan Stern, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Washington,

D.C.; Darrel S. Parker, ROUNDTREE, KNOW, HUNTER & PARKER, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Sam Wright, Jr., appeals from the district court's order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. Wright v. Mayor, Dist. of Columbia, No. CA-97-2083-

A (E.D. Va. Feb. 27, 1998). 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
#### WILLEFORD v. STATE.

No. 22612.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 10, 1943.

Randolph Pierson, of Galveston, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a judgment assessing a penalty of two years in the penitentiary on a jury’s verdict finding him guilty of theft. The appeal is presented 'to us without 'a statement of fact and we are asked to appraise the one bill of exception solely upon the’ bill itself, unaided by anything else in the record.

Complaint is made that the assistant county attorney, in arguing the cáse to the jury, said: “If any of you gentlemen feel that he is guilty you should so find him guilty.” An objection- to the remark was sustained’ by the cautious trial court who admonished the jury not to consider said statement and to disregard same. There is nothing in this bill to exclude the possibility, or even the probability, that the remarks of the attorney were called for by something in the record or some previous remark by appellant’s counsel. We are not advised whether this was made in the opening or closing argument, whether it was preceded by a predicate stating the law of reasonable doubt, a reference to the court’s charge on the subject, or otherwise. In the failure to negative these, we are unable to say that there is error in the argument.

The bill quotes the further language of the oral statement made by the judge to the jury: “You are to disregard the remarks made by Counsel and be guided by the charge of the Court as given to you, however, it is entirely up to you as to whether you believe the defendant is guilty or not.” Assuming, as we probably should in the state of the record, that the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the argument was appropriate, we may be called upon further to consider whether or not his oral statement eliminated the written charge on the burden of proof and reasonable doubt. Considering the entire sentence as quoted, it would be fanciful construction and a super-critical view to say that it had that effect. The jury were admonished in the statement to follow the charge and then were told that it was for them, not the court or counsel on either side, to determine the question of guilt. This they were to do under his charge.

We cannot conceive of an intelligent jury’s being misled or misdirected. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2015

- 0111

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Kay Gamble and I live in Raleigh, NC. I am testifying in support of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and I hope you will consider my comments when making your decision.

The points that I would like to focus on today are job c reation and c ommunity i mpact

– outside the Midwest. I work for Novozymes . We make enzymes, which play an important role in the efficient conversion of corn to ethanol

. O ur headquarters is located in Franklin County , NC which is rural and poor. We are the largest employer in the county . We have grown from 300 employees in 2005 to over 600 in 2015, mostly due to our biofuels business. Many of the new jobs are high paying , with full benefits and a promise of future stability. We now ha ve 30 Technical Service Scientists, 50 R&D Scientists, 20 Sales & Marketing professionals and more than 100 Production and Supply Chain Specialists and workers in Franklinton working almost exclusively for our biofuels business. That’s 200 employees focus ed on

biofuels.

In addition to being a good employer, Novozymes wants to be a good neighbor, and we try to do so in some big ways and some small ways. For example, e ach winter, we work with the local e lementary schools to find out how many kids need coats. Each child gets a new winter coat, gloves, hat and some goodies in the pockets. Each fall we find out how many children will need help with school supplies and prepare dozens and dozen s of fully sup plied backpacks.

More importantly, we want to make a real difference for the health and financial well

- being of the community. When we discovered that we had a difficult time hiring qualified plant and lab workers, we worked with the local community

colle ge to develop an Associate’s degree in b iotechnology production. We now have a pipeline of qualified workers who can work for Novozymes, or for the numerous pharma ceutical companies in the area. Last year, we worked with the local community college agai n to set

- up a program for “First in Family” college attendees. This program allowed the students to get their high school degree and Associate’s degree in 5 years, making a Bachelor’s degree much

more accessible to them. I saw the students and families w alk into our building for the first meeting, and the pride and hope in the family members was almos t palpable.

You will have many experts talk with you today about greenhouse emissions

, national security and other important

issues

. However, I wanted to paint a small picture for you of the importance of the biofuel industry to communities all over the United States, even in North Carolina.

Please support American jobs. Please support a stable RFS. The RFS works.

Sincerely,

Kay Gamble
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7648

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

ROBERT SMITH, a/k/a Boo Boo, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:03-cr-00369-CCB-4) 

Submitted: April 27, 2009 Decided: June 4, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul M. Tiao, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Robert Smith appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we deny Smith’s motion to compel the district court to produce 

his plea agreement and transcript of his arraignment, deny 

Smith’s motion to place his case in abeyance, and affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Smith, 

No. 1:03-cr-00369-CCB-4 (D. Md. May 2, 2008). 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
#### Charlie Mae ANDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27189.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1954.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*523PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area, and her punishment was assessed at a fine of $200.

The complaint and information, as well as all matters of procedure, appear regular. The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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 with the Quarterly
Report of Storage Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 24, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Patrick J. Martin, 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) 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.

/s/ PATRICK J. MARTIN Patrick J. Martin
Chief Executive Officer 
October 29, 2004
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-5069

_____________________________

YOUNG & SON, INC., d/b/a

YOUNG’S CONTRACTING,

Appellant,

v.

MIDSOUTH PAVING, INC.,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Gary L. Bergosh, Judge.

October 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Christopher T. Hill and Rachel O’Brien of Hill, Rugh, Keller & 

Main, P.L., Orlando, for Appellant.

Scott A. Cole and Lisette M. Gonzalez of Cole Scott & Kissane, 

P.A., Miami; Randall G. Rogers of Cole Scott & Kissane, Pensacola, 

for Appellee.
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Oregon Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet at the Florence Convention & Performing Arts Center, at 715 Quince Street, Florence, OR, on October 26, 2000. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. The agenda will include 303-D Listed Streams, public comments, and round-robin information sharing. Two fifteen-minute open public forums are scheduled at 11:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The committee welcomes the publics' written comments on committee business at any time.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joni Quarnstrom, Public Affairs Specialist, Siuslaw National Forest, 541/750-7075 or write to Acting Forest Supervision, Siuslaw National Forest, P.O. Box 1148, Corvallis, OR 97339.

Dated: October 3, 2000.

Y. Robert Iwamoto,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 00-26468  Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### VESTAL v. STATE.

No. 25870.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 22, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was tried before the County Court without a jury on his plea of guilty to the offense of passing a worthless check. His punishment was assessed at a fine of $10 and confinement in the county jail for 30 days.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1



























CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS







We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial information of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries for the period ended September 28, 2003, as indicated in our report dated October 23, 2003; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.



We are aware that our report referred to above, is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-Q, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements File No.'s 333-02683, 333-05231, 333-15851, 333-43055, 333-51189, 333-51181, 333-57779, 333-84483 and 333-86492.



We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.







/S/ BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP



BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP







Dayton, Ohio

October 31, 2003
EXHIBIT 99.2

                                EQUITY ONE, INC.

                              Officer's Certificate

                          Annual Statement of Servicer

     Equity One ABS, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-3
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     Pursuant to the  provisions of the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement for the
above captioned series (the "Agreement"),  the undersigned hereby certifies that
he is an officer of Equity One, Inc. (the  "Servicer"),  and does hereby further
certify that:

     1. A review of the activities of the Servicer  during the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2002 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under
his supervision; and

     2. To the best of his  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the Servicer has
fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under the Agreement  throughout  such fiscal
year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Servicer as of this 28th day of March, 2003.

                                        EQUITY ONE, INC.

                                        By:/s/ Dennis J. Lauria
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Dennis J. Lauria, Vice President