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

**No. 10**  **- 6705** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. EUGENE KENNETH BRINSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:06

- cr - 00107

- HEH; 3:07

- cv - 00592

- HEH )

Submitted : October 19, 2010 Decided: October 27, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Eugene Kenneth Brinson, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eugene Kenneth Brinso n seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 pr isoner 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. 32 2, 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. S lack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the fact s and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 22, 2012

s1015 

# Order

October 22, 2012

145297

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145297

COA: 307390

Wayne CC: 91

- 002313

- FC

JOHN ALBERT MURPHY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 32

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Vatican should recognize

the State of Israel and should establish diplomatic relations with that country.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1993

Mr. ENGEL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Vatican should

recognize the State of Israel and should establish diplomatic relations with that country.

Whereas 117 governments of every political form maintain

full and formal diplomatic relations with the State of

Israel;

Whereas the Vatican and the State of Israel have maintained

formal channels of communication;

Whereas the Vatican and the State of Israel participate in

ongoing consultations and informal diplomatic exchanges;

Whereas the end of the Cold War facilitated the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the nations of Eastern Europe and between Israel and the

former Soviet Union;
2

•HCON 32 IH

Whereas the 5 permanent members of the United Nations

Security Council all now maintain full diplomatic relations with Israel;

Whereas the ‘‘Nostra Aetate’’ calls for Catholic-Jewish dialogue and understanding;

Whereas the National Conference on Catholic Bishops’ statement, entitled ‘‘The Pursuit of Peace with Justice,’’ supports the ‘‘rights of Israel to existence as a sovereign

state with secure and recognized boundaries’’;

Whereas the National Christian Leadership Conference has

urged Pope John Paul II to formally recognize the State

of Israel;

Whereas the Vatican has demonstrated constructive support

for the Egypt-Israel peace treaty; and

Whereas the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the State of Israel would be a

positive step toward peace and stability in the Middle

East and would promote increased harmony between

Christians and Jews throughout the world: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 Vatican should grant official recognition to the State of

4 Israel and should establish diplomatic relations with that

5 country.

6 SEC. 2. The Clerk of the House of Representatives

7 shall transmit copies of this resolution to the President

8 with a request that the President transmit those copies

9 to the Vatican and to the Government of Israel.
3

•HCON 32 IH

Æ
H. Con. Res. 206 Agreed to February 10, 1994

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on Thursday, February 10,

1994, Friday, February 11, 1994, Saturday, February 12, 1994,

Sunday, February 13, 1994, Monday, February 14, 1994, Tuesday,

February 15, 1994, Wednesday, February 16, 1994, Thursday, February 17, 1994, or Friday, February 18, 1994, pursuant to a motion

made by the Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned

until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, February 22, 1994, or until noon on

the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant

to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first;

and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of

business on Thursday, February 10, 1994, Friday, February 11,

1994, Saturday, February 12, 1994, Sunday, February 13, 1994,

Monday, February 14, 1994, Tuesday, February 15, 1994, Wednesday, February 16, 1994, Thursday, February 17, 1994, or Friday,

February 18, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority

Leader or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand

recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, February 22, 1994,

or at such time as may be specified by the Majority Leader or

his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon

on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs

first.

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader

of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority

Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall

notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively,
H. Con. Res. 206—2

to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall

warrant it.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Diversified Futures Fund Limited Partnership and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial instruments.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                     150,883,840
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  683,392<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             151,839,798<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               151,839,798<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,276,764<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,942,925
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,333,839
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,333,839
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,333,839
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $545,304 and due from DWR
of $138,088.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $272,566.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $5,268,851, accrued brokerage
commissions of $513,888, accrued management fees of $381,557,
administrative expenses payable of $118,928 and accrued transaction fees
and costs of $31,683.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $6,590,775, net
change in unrealized of $282,730 and interest income of $3,403,259.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### GUNTER v. STATE.

No. 22639.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1943.

H. S. Beard, of Waco, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of forgery, ■and sentenced to serve a term of two years in the penitentiary.

The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions, in the absence •of which no question is presented for review. The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 55 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 55

Expressing the sense of the Congress that an economic recovery program 
   should include expenditures for certain State and local programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 1993

  Mrs. Byrne submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress that an economic recovery program 
   should include expenditures for certain State and local programs.

Whereas the most effective short-term stimulus needed to begin and sustain an 
        economic recovery is increased Federal, State, and local investment;
Whereas programs and services provided by State and local governments have been 
        curtailed due to the recession and Federal cutbacks;
Whereas State and local recreation programs have suffered greater reductions 
        than many other programs and services;
Whereas State and local recreation programs provide opportunity for children, 
        teens, adults, and seniors to grow physically and mentally, to manage 
        stress and maintain health; to find social involvement; to experience 
        nature; and
Whereas spending for rehabilitation and restoration of our State and local 
        recreation facilities, parks, playgrounds, and trails provide employment 
        opportunities in cities, suburbs, and rural areas: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that any economic recovery program 
adopted by the Congress should provide each of the following:
            (1) $60,000,000 for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery 
        Program (Public Law 95-625).
            (2) $150,000,000 for the State side of the Land and Water 
        Conservation Fund (Public Law 88-578), title I, ``FINANCIAL 
        ASSISTANCE TO STATES'', section 6(a) for purposes of planning 
        and development.
            (3) $35,000,000 for the American Conservation Corps under 
        the National Commission for National and Community Service 
        (Public Law 101-610).
            (4) $60,000,000 for the Department of the Interior and the 
        Department of Agriculture for the Youth Conservation Corps 
        Program authorized under Public Law 93-408.

                                 <all>
```
#### PATTERSON v. STATE.

No. 25013.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Cr. Dist. Atty., Harris County, E. T. Branch, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was given the death penalty for the murder of his wife and he appeals.

There is no material conflict in the evidence. Appellant and deceased had been married twenty-five years and had five children, the oldest, a young man, was married and he testified in the case for the State. For quite a while prior to the killing appellant had been staying with his mother and a widowed sister in Mart, Texas, both of whom testified that appellant had tuberculosis and was confined to his bed. He purchased a pistol in Waco and went to Houston where he found his wife, recently divorced, working in a large grocery store. She was behind the cold drink counter. The attention of employees in the store was attracted by the wife’s emphatic refusal to do something which he had demanded and then by the shooting. Three bullets entered her body, either of which, according to the evidence, might have been fatal. He was standing between her and the only exit. In running from him she fell over the counter and on the floor. He went to this point, reached over and fired his last shot from over the counter. She died in a very few minutes. A policeman and others in thq store overpowered him, took his gun and placed him under arrest. The gun held six shells which had been fired.

Witnesses, including the son, testified to previous threats and attempts of appellant to take the life of his wife. At one of such times he was drinking.

The record in this case is a model of simplicity and accuracy. The indictment reads as follows: *"In the name and by authority of the State of Texas:*The Grand Jury of Harris County, State of Texas, *872duly organized at the February Term, A. D. 1950 of Criminal District Court No. 2 of said 'County, in said Court, at said term, do present that J. B. Patterson on or about the 25th day of February, A. D. 1950, in said County and State, did with malice aforethought kill Nettie Marie Patterson by shooting her with a gun. Against the peace and dignity of the State. Geo. N. Posey, Foreman of the Grand Jury.”

The charge is as simple and comprehensive as the indictment. It covers every possible issue. No exceptions were lodged against it and there are no bills of exception in the record'. A motion for a new trial made complaint of the introduction of certain testimony.. There is no bill of excep*•tion bringing this question up and we think ‘that the evidence was admissible.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 14 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 14

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
            relating to voluntary prayer in public schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 1991

   Mr. Combest introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
            relating to voluntary prayer in public schools.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit the inclusion of 
voluntary prayer in any public school program or activity. Neither the 
United States nor any State shall prescribe the content of any such 
prayer.''.

                                 <all>
```
# QSBL 033113

Page &P of &N

# Business Lending 033113

Page &P of &N

# QSBL 123112

Page &P of &N

# QSBL 093012

Page &P of &N

# QSBL 063012

Page &P of &N

# QSBL 033112

Page &P of &N

# QSBL 123111

Page &P of &N

# QSBL 093011

Page &P of &N

# QSBL 063011

Page &P of &N

# QSBL 033111

Page &P of &N

# image1.png
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Francis J. Capobianco, Defendant.

County Court, Schenectady County,

April *19,*1958.

*Andrew A. Santora*for defendant.

*Morris Marshall Cohn, District Attorney (James H. Gould*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Archibald C. Wemple, J.

On March 20, 1958 this court granted a motion made by the District Attorney to dismiss an appeal from the above conviction on the grounds that the defendant herein had failed to comply with sections 751 and 761 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The defendant, after the dismissal of his appeal, is now attempting to seek his remedy by an application brought in this court in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis.*

It is fundamental law that a writ of error *coram nobis*is not intended as a substitute for an appeal. The Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that it is only the court where the defendant is tried and convicted which possesses the power to hear and determine a motion in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis.*
      *526
      *(People*v. *Wurzler,*300 N. Y. 344; *People*v. *McCullough,*300 N. Y. 107.)

Therefore, defendant must address this application to the Police Court of the City of Schenectady, that being the court wherein the defendant was tried and convicted, and not this court. The appeal having been dismissed the case is still in the original trial court.

Application is denied without prejudice.

Submit order.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James P. Bouchard, 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 to my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ James P. Bouchard  
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
Exhibit to this

report and should not be considered filed as a part of this report.
Case 2:22-cv-00090-Z-BR Document 7 Filed 02/09/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 22
#### COOK v. STATE.

No. 24124.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 27, 1948.

No appearance for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted for the offense of aggravated assault and assessed a fine of $1,000.

The proceedings appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is áf-firmed.