alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7661

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY DAVIS GARNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-02-134; CA-04-507-2) Submitted: March 30, 2006 D ecided: April 7, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Davis Garner, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1Although Garner filed his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), the motion was filed fourteen days after the district court’s order dismissing his § 2255 motion. Thus, the motion was properly construed as a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Anthony Davis Garner seeks to appeal a district court order denying as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 1An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Garner 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 legal2 To the extent that Garner may be seeking authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second and successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion based upon United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005); Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2005); and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we deny authorization. - 3 - contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 2

DISMISSED
#### GRAY v. STATE.

No. 17630.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 12, 1935.

Rehearing Granted Nov. 27, 1935.

Alex Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment appears regular and properly presented. A plea of guilty was entered. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception.

No error having been perceived or pointed out, the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; punishment being two years in the penitentiary.

Near the close of the previous term an opinion was delivered affirming the judgment. Pending a motion for rehearing the law (Pen. ’Code 1925, art. 666 et seq., as amended) under which conviction was had has been repealed (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 49), hence the conviction falls. See Guy Meadows v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 481, opinion of this date. The motion for rehearing is granted, the judg*488.ment of affirmance is set aside, and the ' former opinion is withdrawn. The judgment of conviction is now reversad and the prosecution is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, P. Morgan McCune, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Triple A Medical, Inc.



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: November 8, 2007















/s/ P. Morgan McCune







P. Morgan McCune









Chief Financial Officer
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 11, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00649

- CR

Alex Rene GONZALES

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial Distr ict Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR7573

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The

Appellant ’ s brief is due June 25, 2015.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of May, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6444

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

DENNIS HOLLAND, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David 

Schroeder, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00264-TDS-1) 

Submitted: October 27, 2009 Decided: December 14, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dennis Holland, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dennis Holland appeals the district court’s order 

denying Holland’s motion to compel the Government to file a 

substantial assistance motion. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

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

No. 1:03-cr-00264-TDS-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 18, 2009). 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
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Dr. Jean-Claude E. Gehret, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of E C Consulting International, Inc., certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of E C Consulting International, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. I, as the certifying officer have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.   Date: July 1, 2013 By: /s/ Dr. Jean-Claude E. Gehret Dr. Jean-Claude E. Gehret Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of United Mines, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn E. Martin, President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:  August
      13, 2009
            /s/
      Glenn E. MartinBy:  Glenn
      E. MartinIts:  President





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
United Mines, Inc. and will be retained by United Mines, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Office of Personnel Management

Retirement and Insurance Group

1920 1954 1959 

 

1986 

Benefits Administration Letter

Number: 95-205 Date: January 24, 1995 

SUBJECT Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program:

Revised SF 2820 (Certification of Insured Employee's Retired Status)

_________________________________________________________________

Date of Revision The revised form is dated August 1994

_____________________________________________

Purpose of The form has been changed to a three-part

Revision form with carbons. It has also been revised

to update OPM's address and to make other

minor language changes.

_____________________________________________

When Available The revised SF 2820 will be ready by April 3,

1995, from OPM only. To order the form,

contact Forms Analysis & Design Section, 202-

606-0623; the FAX number is 202-606-0910.

_____________________________________________

Previous Editions Previous editions are not usable.

_________________________________________________________________
usbank(logo)



Global Corporate
Trust

190 S. LaSalle
Street, 7th Floor

MK-IL-SL7C

Chicago, IL 60603



usbank.com



Annual Statement of Compliance

UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C2



VIA: EMAIL



UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp.

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10019

Attention: Nicholas G. Galeone

Email: nicholas.galeone@ubs.com



17g5informationprovider@usbank.com



| | Re: | ThePooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated as of July 1, 2012 among UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
as master servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as special servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as operating advisor, and
U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, certificate administrator, paying agent and custodian
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I, Kimberly O. Jacobs,
a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator hereby certify that:



(1) A review of the activities
of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance
of the Certificate Administrator under the Agreement have been made under my supervision; and



(2) To the best of my knowledge,
based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such Reporting Period.



Capitalized terms used
but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



Date: March 1, 2019



U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator





|By: | /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs | 
|--- | ---------------------- | 
|    | Kimberly O. Jacobs     | 
|    | Senior Vice President  |
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3391 

To provide Governors of States with the authority to withhold Federal financial assistance from units of local government that do not comply with 

the immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2015 

Mr. PERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide Governors of States with the authority to withhold Federal financial assistance from units of local government that do not comply with the immigration laws, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD FEDERAL FINAN4 CIAL ASSISTANCE. 

5 A Governor of a State may withhold Federal financial 

6 assistance (as such term is defined in section 7501(a)(5) 

7 of title 31, United States Code) from a unit of local govVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:48 Aug 07, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3391.IH H3391

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3391 IH

1 ernment in that State that has not complied with the im2 migration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of 

3 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)), 

4 as determined by the Governor. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|   | 1. | The      Company’s Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the      “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Information      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    | /s/      Xiaoqun Ye                |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Date:      May 14, 2010 | Xiaoqun      Ye                    |
|                    | Chief      Executive Officer       |
|                    | (Principal      Executive Officer) |
|                    |                               |
|                    | /s/      Yan Lin                   |
| Date:      May 14, 2010 | Yan      Lin                       |
|                    | Chief      Accounting Officer      |
|                    | (Principal      Financial Officer) |

----
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (17th Chamber), by judgment of that court of 8 September 2004 in the case of Gérald de Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi

(Case C-406/04)

(2004/C 284/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) (17th Chamber) by judgment of that court of 8 September 2004, in the case of Gérald de Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi, received at the Court Registry on 23 September 2004.

The Tribunal de travail de Bruxelles (17th Chamber) has asked the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

‘Does the obligation actually to reside in Belgium, which under Article 66 of the Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 regulating unemployment is a condition for the award of benefits, applied to an unemployed person aged over 50 who enjoys an exemption under Article 89 of that Royal Decree from the requirement to sign on which entails dispensation from the requirement to be available for work, amount to a fetter on the freedom of movement and residence of all European citizens under Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?

Does the obligation of residence in the State competent to award unemployment benefits, justified in domestic law by the needs of monitoring compliance with the statutory requirements for the payment of benefits to unemployed persons, satisfy the requirement of proportionality which must be observed in the pursuit of that objective of general interest in that it constitutes a limitation on the freedom of movement and residence of all European citizens under Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?

Does that residence requirement not have the effect of discriminating between European citizens who are nationals of a Member State competent to award unemployment benefits by affording that entitlement to those who do not exercise the right to freedom of movement and residence of all European citizens under Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty, whilst denying it to those who do seek to exercise that right, by the deterrent effect which that restriction entails?’

----
#### Lawrence GONZALES, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 20330.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1939.

Earl Shelton and Horace H. Shelton, both of Austin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of marihuana; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

Upon the written motion of the appellant, duly verified by his affidavit, the appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Yankee Holding Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 4, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig W. Rydin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; 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/ Craig W. Rydin     
|Craig W. Rydin         
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|May 13, 2009           



33