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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JIMMY LEE SADLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-93-160, CA-01-4326)

Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lee Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Lee Sadler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001)

and motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny Sadler’s motion for a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Sadler, Nos. CA-93-160; CA-01-4326 (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2001;

filed Jan. 11, 2002 & entered Jan. 14, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6863

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RAUL CASTILLO RAMOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:04-cr-00293-PJM-1; 8:14-cv-01510-PJM)

Submitted: November 14, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raul Castillo Ramos, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ronald Baldwin, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland; James 

Marton Trusty, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raul Castillo Ramos seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Ramos has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS  AND  STATEMENTS  OF  INCOME  FOUND  IN  THE  COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE 
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996  AND IS QUALIFIED IN  ITS ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         18,741
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    83,677
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         2,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       153
<OTHER-SE>                                     93,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,736
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               73,532
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               28,745
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                33,489
<INCOME-TAX>                                   9,466
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            24,022
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                3,168
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   27,190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> Earnings per share data for periods prior to October 31, 1996 have not been
presented in the accompanying financial statements because the Company was not a
public  company.  Earnings  per share  data for the period  November  1, 1996 to
December  31,  1996 have not been  presented  in the  accompanying  consolidated
financial  statements  because  management  believes that such data would not be
meaningful  given the relatively  short period and the impact of the recognition
of a deferred tax liability in connection with the change in tax status.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Edward Polidi, Appellant, v John F. Mouner, Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 881]

In an action to recover on a promissory *579note brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated July 10, 2003, which denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213. In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,199,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    499,761
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,777,115
<PP&E>                                      17,009,119
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,415,008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,743,370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,018,089
<BONDS>                                      1,607,694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       384,017
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,733,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,743,370
<SALES>                                          1,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,001,830
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,172,575
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             190,943
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,206,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,206,887)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,206,887)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 22-0549 

BRYAN KEITH BARTHOLOMEW, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

BRIAN GOOTKIN, 

Respondent. 

imiLlaL) 

OCT 25 2022 

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana 

ORDER 

Petitioner Bryan Bartholomew seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing that he be 

immediately released from continued illegal restraints of his liberties and for an Order 

discharging his sentence. Bartholomew, who was convicted in 2006 of several felony 

offenses, received a combination of sentences totaling fifteen years. He contends that 

because sentencing occurred on August 28, 2006, "worst case scenario, Petitioner would 

have discharged his sentence no later than August 28, 2021." Bartholomew's petition 

alleges that he remains on probation under supervision of the Department of Corrections, 

which erroneously maintains that his discharge date is August 18, 2024. 

Respondent Brian Gootkin, through counsel, concedes under the particular facts 

presented in this record and in the interests ofjustice that Bartholomew has served the lawful 

length of his sentence, is entitled to a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and should be immediately 

released from DOC supervision. Accordingly, the Department has terminated 

Bartholomew's probation effective immediately. 

Having reviewed the Petition and Response, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 

GRANTED. Bartholomew's sentences in Yellowstone County Cause Nos. DC-2005-

0000062, DC 2005-0000185, DC 2005-0000398, DC 2006-0000389 are DISCHARGED, 

and the Department of Corrections is ordered to immediately release him from supervision. 

10/25/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0549
The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to the Attorney 

General; to Brian Gootkin, Director of the Montana Department of Corrections; to the 

Yellowstone County Attorney; and to all counsel of record. Service in the same manner as a 

summons in a civil action, as provided in § 46-22-206, MCA, shall not be required. 

DATED this Z.....tiday of October, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

C94 

Justices
#### McLean vs. Cook.

*Collection of taxes*— seizure *of property.*

1 One cannot resist payment of taxes upon lands assessed in his name, on the ground tliat lie is merely an occupant, and not tlie owner, of the lands.

2. A tax warrant, regular on its face, protects the officer who executes its mandate.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Calumet*County.

The plaintiff appealed from a judgment for the defendant. The case will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

*Gillet <& Pier,*for appellant. [No brief.]

*K S. Bragg,*for respondent, cited *Sprague v. Birchard, 1*Wis. 457, and authorities there collected and reviewed.

Cole, J".

We do not know upon what ground the plaintiff expects to reverse this judgment. It appears that his personal property was seized and sold by the defendant, as town treasurer, for the payment of a tax assessed against a lot which the plaintiff had occupied for twelve or fifteen years, and had paid the taxes thereon. We infer from something in the bill of exceptions, that the plaintiff resisted the payment of the tax because he did not own the land, or that the title was in the *365Eox and Wisconsin Railroad Company. Our statute provides tbat land owned by one person and occupied by another may be assessed in the name of the owner or occupant. Section 6, cbap. 18, R. S.

Besides, tbe officer was undoubtedly protected by bis tax warrant, being fair and regular on its face. *Sprague v. Birch*ard, 1 Wis. 457; 2 Phill. Ev. (3d vol. ed. Cowen, Hill & Edwards’ notes), p. 136, and note 293, pp. 152, 153. We do not understand that any objection was taken to the process, that it was not fair and legal on its face; and it was, therefore, a justification to the defendant.

*By the Oourt.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
---

---

Exhibit 15.1

|
|
|

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File nos.
333-131991, 333-05670, 333-08824 and 333-12178) of Orckit Communications Ltd. of our
report dated March 12, 2006, relating to the financial statements which appear in this
Form 20-F.

|Tel-Aviv, Israel   
     March 15, 2006 |  | /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman
Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
|--------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    Exhibit 20.2


                             SERVICERS' CERTIFICATE

                             AFCO CREDIT CORPORATION

                           AFCO ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION

                  MELLON BANK PREMIUM FINANCE LOAN MASTER TRUST


                  The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of AFCO
Credit Corporation and AFCO Acceptance Corporation (jointly "AFCO"), as
Servicer, pursuant to Section 3.5 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of December 1, 1996 (as may be amended and supplemented from time to time,
the "Agreement"), among Mellon Bank, NA, as Transferor, AFCO Credit Corporation,
as Servicer, AFCO Acceptance Corporation, as Servicer, Premium Financing
Specialists, Inc., as Back-up Servicer, Premium Financing Specialists of
California, Inc., as Back-up Servicer and The First National Bank of Chicago, as
Trustee, does hereby certify that:

         1.       AFCO is, as of the date hereof, Servicer under the Agreement.
                  Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their
                  respective meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

         2.       The undersigned is a Servicing Officer who is duly authorized
                  pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this
                  Certificate to Trustee.

         3.       A review of the activities of Servicer during the fiscal year
                  ended December 31, 1997, and of its performance under the
                  Agreement was conducted under my supervision.

         4.       Based on such review, Servicer has, to the best of my
                  knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations
                  under the Agreement throughout such year and no default in the
                  performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
Certificate this 24th day of March, 1998.



                             AFCO CREDIT CORPORATION, as Servicer


                             By  /s/ Frederick B. Ollett, III
                                ---------------------------------------
                                Name:  Frederick B. Ollett, III
                                Title: Vice President & Chief Financial Officer



                             AFCO ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, as
                                 Servicer


                             By  /s/ Frederick B. Ollett, III
                                ---------------------------------------
                                Name:  Frederick B. Ollett, III
                                Title: Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANK ESQUIVEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:05-cr-00026-F-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Esquivel, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United

States Attorneys, Kimberly Ann Moore, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Frank Esquivel appeals the district court’s orders denying 

relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction 

of sentence and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have 

reviewed the record and find that the district court did not 

abuse its considerable discretion in denying Esquivel’s 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of 

§ 3582(c)(2) relief on the reasoning of the district court. 

United States v. Esquivel, No. 5:05-cr-00026-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 

13, 2016). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to 

consider Esquivel’s motion for reconsideration, we affirm the 

denial of that order. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 

233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that district court lacks 

authority to grant motion to reconsider ruling on § 3582(c)(2) 

motion). We 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. 

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6971

TYRONE A. RAVENELL,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN CECELIA REYNOLDS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (6:15-cv-01743-PMD)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone A. Ravenell, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline M. Scrantom, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John 

Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone A. Ravenell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Ravenell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
503.1-1

(Amended February 5, l988)

RULE 503.1 EX PARTE PETITIONS FOR VARIANCES

Ex parte petitions for variances may be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. Petitions

shall meet the requirements of Rule 503. Ex parte variances will normally be granted only 

until such time as a hearing can be held in the matter. Petitions for ex parte variances must 

be verified.
**Exhibit 7.1**

**Videotron Ltd.**

**Statement Regarding Calculation of Ratio of Earnings toFixed Charges as Disclosed in**

**Videotron Ltd.’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the Year Ended December 31,2014**

For the purpose of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixed charges disclosed in Videotron Ltd.’s AnnualReport on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014, (i) earnings consist of net income plus income taxes, fixed charges, amortized capitalized interest, authorized capitalized interest, less interest capitalized, and (ii) fixedcharges consist of interest expensed and capitalized, excluding interest on QMI subordinated loans, plus amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses relating to indebtedness and an estimate of the interest within rental expense.