alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4195

DAVID EARL HARVEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.

G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-97-469)

Submitted: September 22, 1998

Decided: November 19, 1998

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David Earl Harvey appeals from his conviction and sentence for

violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Harvey's

attorney has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but discussing the district court's Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 inquiry and its application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Harvey was informed

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but failed to file one.

Harvey does not allege any specific defect in the Rule 11 inquiry,

and we find none. The court insured that Harvey understood the

charges against him and the nature of his guilty plea. The court also

advised Harvey about the rights he was waiving and the potential

punishments he faced. Finally, Harvey informed the court that he was

satisfied with the performance of counsel, and he stated that he was

knowingly and willfully pleading guilty. We therefore find that the

trial court's inquiry satisfied the requirements of Rule 11. See United

States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991).

Harvey likewise does not allege any specific error in the calculation of his sentencing range, and we do not find any. Moreover, this

court lacks authority to review correctly calculated sentences falling

within the appropriate statutory or Guidelines ranges. See United

States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

Pursuant to the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed the

entire record for potential error and have found none. Accordingly,

we affirm Harvey's conviction and sentence.

This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

move this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

AFFIRMED

 2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28765]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than November 24, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. William E. Coffee, Billings, Montana, individually and as 
trustee for the following trusts: Coffee Family Trust I, Coffee Family 
Trust II, Nefsy Family Trust I, Nefsy Family Trust II, and Nefsy Family 
Trust III, and the following trusts acting in concert: Coffee Family 
Trust I, Coffee Family Trust II, Nefsy Family Trust I, and Nefsy Family 
Trust III, all of Billings, Montana, to acquire voting shares of 
Stockman Financial Corporation, Miles City, Montana, and thereby 
indirectly acquire voting shares of Stockman Bank of Montana, Miles 
City, Montana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 3, 
2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-28765 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-347-020]

Take notice that on October 31, 2000, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective December 1, 2000:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 263H

Third Revised Sheet No. 263H.1

Alternate Fourth Revised Sheet No. 263H

Alternate Third Revised Sheet No. 263H.1

Northern states that Tariff Sheet Nos. 263H and 263H.1 reflect the Sourcers' flow obligation after the Appendix B customers' election to source or buyout based on the 2000 Carlton Settlement pending before the Commission as well as Northern's current tariff.

Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

                    Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28927  Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 1, 2016

s0525 

# Order

Clerk June 1, 2016

153293 & (20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153293

COA: 329541

Kent CC: 00

- 012438

- FH

JAMES ROSS WINRICK,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the January 13, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented

should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350     I, Melvyn Brunt, Chief Financial Officer of Sielox, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 31, 2009   /s/ Melvyn BruntMelvyn BruntChief Financial Officer
Union Calendar No. 180

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 170

[Report No. 103–329]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of

31, 1994.States Armed Forces from Somalia by Januarythe War Powers Resolution to remove United

NOVEMBER 5, 1993

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee

dered to be printedof the Whole House on the State of the Union, and or-
IV

Union Calendar No. 180

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 170

[Report No. 103–329]

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution

to remove United States Armed Forces from Somalia by January 31, 1994.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 22, 1993

Mr. GILMAN (for himself and Mr. SPENCE) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

NOVEMBER 5, 1993

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the part printed in italic]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War

Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed

Forces from Somalia by January 31, 1994.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 170 RH

1 SECTION 1. FINDING THAT THE UNITED STATES ARMED

2 FORCES IN SOMALIA ARE ENGAGED IN HOS3 TILITIES.

4 For purposes of sections 5(c) and 7 of the War Pow5 ers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c) and 1546), the Con6 gress finds that the United States Armed Forces in Soma7 lia are engaged in hostilities without a declaration of war

8 or specific statutory authorization.

9 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF ARMED FORCES FROM SOMALIA.

10 Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolu11 tion (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), the Congress hereby directs the

12 President to remove the United States Armed Forces from

13 Somalia by January 31, 1994.

14 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

15 FROM SOMALIA.

16 Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution

17 (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), the Congress hereby directs the Presi18 dent to remove United States Armed Forces from Somalia

19 by March 31, 1994 (unless the President requests and the

20 Congress authorizes a later date), except for a limited num21 ber of members of the Armed Forces sufficient only to pro22 tect United States diplomatic facilities and citizens, and

23 noncombatant personnel to advise the United Nations com24 mander in Somalia.
3

•HCON 170 RH

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘Concurrent resolution directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of

the War Powers Resolution to remove United States

Armed Forces from Somalia.’’.
#### DURAN v. STATE.

No. 21822.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1942.

B. L. Jeffrey and Wm. H. Davis, both of Carrizo Springs, and John T. Spann and G. C. Jackson, both of Crystal City, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a sale of whisky in a dry area, and fined the sum of $100.

 There are many propositions presented in the record that are written upon in our No. 21962, Jesus Duran v. State, 158 S.W.2d 315, this day decided, that record being in many respects similar to this cause. There was no proof offered herein relative to the dry status of Dimmit County, nor did the charge of the court require the jury to find that a sale was made to J. M. Rich, the person to whom the complaint and information alleged such sale to have been made. This court’s remarks in the opinion in our cause No. 21962, Jesus Duran v. State, are appropriate herein, and for the same errors as therein set forth, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00857

- CR Andrew M ENDOZA , Appellant

v. The /s The S TATE of Texas, Appellee From the 144th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CR

- 3452A Honorable Lorina I. Rummel , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 4, 2015
DISMISSED
On December 16, 2014, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record within thirty days. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 175

- 76 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). Appellant did not file an amended certification. The clerk’s record does not contain a certification that shows the d efendant has the right of appeal; to the contrary, the trial court certification in the record states “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has04

- 14

- 00857

- CR NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punish ment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). Accord ingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20

- 2180

_____________________________
I VEY C ROSBY a /k/a Rudolph Rock
,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

September 25, 2020

P ER C URIAM

. Petitioner’s “motion for emergency release,” docketed July 27, 2020, is treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and is denied on the merits.

R OBERTS , O STERHAUS , and J AY , JJ., concur

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

.

_____________________________

Ivey Crosby, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
#### WARD v. STATE.

No. 23099.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 11, 1945.

J. K. Russell, of Cleburne, and Henry Tirey, of Dallas, for appellant.

*815Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon an indictment charging the offense of assault with intent to maim, the appellant was convicted of simple assault and her punishment assessed at a fine of Twenty-Five Dollars.

No statement of facts or bills of exception accompany the record as to the trial of the case upon its merits. There does accompany this record a statement of facts adduced upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial.

In the absence of the facts adduced upon the trial of the case, we are in no position to appraise the questions presented by the motion for a new trial.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals .and approved by the Court.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 29

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the United States Customs

Child Pornography and Protection Unit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1993

Mr. LEWIS of Florida submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the United

States Customs Child Pornography and Protection Unit.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) the protection of our Nation’s children from

4 exploitation must remain of the highest priority for

5 the United States Government;

6 (2) as a result of the integration of the United

7 States Customs Child Pornography and Protection

8 Unit into a larger division in February, 1991, em9 ployee hours spent investigating child pornography

10 from 1990 to 1992 were cut to barely one fourth of
2

•HCON 29 IH

1 the previous level, and arrests on child pornography

2 charges by United States Customs have been nearly

3 halved from 110 to 57 and convictions were reduced

4 from 103 to 69;

5 (3) the United States Customs Service should

6 reestablish a unit specifically tasked with enforcing

7 laws prohibiting child exploitation and pornography,

8 and prosecuting violators of those laws; and

9 (4) the efforts of this reestablished unit, as

10 measured by employee hours, arrests, and convic11 tions, should equal or exceed those of the United

12 States Customs Child Pornography and Protection

13 Unit in fiscal 1990.

Æ
#### ALLPRESS v. McGILL.

No. 12380.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antoni.

Feb. 13, 1952.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1952.

Spann & Spann, San Antonio, for appellant.

Hubert W. Green, San Antonio, for ap-pellee.

POPE, Justice.

This suit -concerns the right of a -party to recover liquidated damages and also actual damages upon the breach of a contract.

Appellant, Mrs. Eva Jo Allpress, prior to August 9, 1950, claimed that she had made certain improvements *on*a piece of real estate owned by appellee, Woodrow W. McGill. On that date the two parties entered into a written agreement by which appellee contracted to sell the property and pay appellant the sum of $4,000.00 out of the proceeds. Sin-ce certain liens existed against the property the sale was not made. Appellee sought a declaration of his rights as against appellant and she icross-acted for damages in the amount of $5,000.00. She claimed the sum she would have received had the sale -been made, as well as the $1,000.00 which was agreed upon as liquidated damages in the event of a breach. The trial court awarded appellant $1,000.00 by way of liquidated damages.

 Appellant may not recover actual damages and also liquidated damages. How much, if anything, would remain out of a sale of the real estate after payment of the liens against the realty was not proved. But when damages are estimated in advance and liquidated by agreement, actual damages can not also -be recovered. Huffhines v. Bourland, Tex.Com.App., 280 S.W. 561; Smith v. Lane, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W.2d 214; Elliot v. Henck, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 292; Blair v. Bird, Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 843; McCelvy v. Bell, Tex.Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 390.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Ex parte Mrs. John HILLEY.

No. 21879.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1942.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1942.

Walter A. Nelson, of Fort Worth, Hayden C. Covington, of Brooklyn, N. Y., and A. M. Mood, of Fort Worth, for appellant.'

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Relator was convicted of violating, an ordinance of the City of Comanche. She appealed to the county court and was there again convicted and assessed a fine of $15. She then secured a writ of habeas corpus from the district judge, and upon a hearing was remanded, from which order she prosecutes this appeal.

The ordinance was not violative of the Constitution.

Insofar as she seeks a review of the facts upon the claim that the ordinance was misapplied, this case presents the same question dealt with in Ex parte Killam, Tex.Cr.App., 162 S.W.2d 426, and in Ex parte Largent, Tex.Cr.App., 162 S.W.2d 419, this day decided. For the reasons controlling those cases the judgment remanding relator is affirmed.

GRAVES, Judge

(dissenting).

My views have been expressed in the Lar-gent case, supra.

On Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

For the reasons set forth in Ex parte Tully B. Killam, Tex.Cr.App., 162 S.W.2d 426, the motion for rehearing in this cause is overruled.
#### EVANS v. STATE.

No. 23712.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 18, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon an indictment charging murder with malice, appellant was convicted of murder without malice and his punishment fixed at five years in the State penitentiary.

No bills of exception accompany the record. The facts show appellant’s guilt. It would serve no useful purpose to here recite them.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 The undersigned, Ronald Michels, President and Chief Executive Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: August 11, 2011
 By:
/s/ Ronald MichelsRonald MichelsPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 
 This certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated by reference.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.