alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7324

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. EMANUEL BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (2:90-cr-00240; 1:07-cv-00195-NCT) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 27, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emanuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Emanuel Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Brown’s motion to amend his informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Brown’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock , 340- 3 - F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Brown’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

136) ll-E-96 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:07 AM Sheet 136 of 264 
P.2 

06/20/97 10:19 AUSTIN COUNTERTOPS INC * 19199410234 

4jxv4W4iu_;j4 PES RTP NC 

NO.023 P03 

©002/002 

A-94-52 

l|-E% 

From: 

i 

Date:! 

i 

CoDtslcr: 

! 

Company: 

Contact Report 

Melanie Proctor, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

June 18,1997 

Ms. Kaye Langham 

Austin Countertops 

s\ 

Telepfoooe Number: (512) 835-5100 

Fax Number: (512) 339-1796 

Coota< t Summary: 

jMs. Langham was contacted to verify the resin hazardous air pollutant (HA?) content 

information provided in the 1993 EPA screening survey submitted by Austin Countertops. Ms. 

Proctor .pointed out that Austin Countertops reported a very low resin HAP content in the survey 

compared to other polymer casting facilities and that the EPA would like to verify this 

information before it would be used in determining national emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants for this industry. 

)|ds. Langham explained that the material safety data sheet showed that their resin 

28 percent styrene and 18 percent alpha methyl styrene. When asked if Austin 

Counterjops adds any additional HAP to the resin once it is received, Ms. Langham explained 

additional HAP is added to the resin at the facility. 

contain* 

Counte 

that no 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE Ay L<**iti?i&iQJ/&-**<JL to 

> 

(fat <7>Uy <^uu 25WV **** *" 

^ ^ <&^fi f/}0*wu ^ ^ 

Afos &*&> 

OrSM. 

° Miauc <tf <>***$ tv*-** f 
06/20/9? 10:19 AUSTIN COUNTERTOPS INC •» 19199410234 

S$ULvfcn ^ouibtevfofiAj *Jnc. 

11108 BLUFF ' BeNO ORIVE . AUSTIN. TEXAS 787S3 • (512) 835-S1CO • FAX (5121 339-1796 

N"JM 2 i S Or' PAGES: r? -

(NOT -IN.r-'wiiSG C0VS3?. ?AOSi 

P.3 

NO.023 001 , 

aj "I "X-
P.4 

06/20/9 ? 10=19 

> 06*/18/97 I 17:44 

AUSTIN COUNTERTOPS INC * 19199410234 

19199410234 

©19199410234 PES RTP NC 

NO.023 D02 

©001/002 

ffi «c* « E^neMMeMTAc sERvtcea. MC. 

/ 

#•*«• . 

3 i 

<fcy.i9** 

Centra) Pa« West 

9001 South Miami Bouleuartf. Siftg 300 

CO. BOJ; 12077 

Resaaxe* Triangle Py < NC 27709>2O77 

(919) 941-0333 

FAX (919) 9414234 

FAX COMMUNICATION 

Date: 

FROM; 

TO: 

&£//#/ *7 

»C '*•* 

Name: 

Address: 

M faug £<*»ifr ayry 

sdC'Sj/to £e * >•? i'*~ £*j* S 

s4«t4:* , *T~X 

Phone Number: 

TAX NUMBER: 

REFERENCE COOE: 

Csn) f35 - r/^g> 

C S'l) 33f- /7f* 

THIS COMMUNICATION COMPRISES 2 

COMMENTS: *J)sd^ /fc. £ 

PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE. 

/? 

WAJMWOTDU. e-c. • n*se*«c» IMMNSIE W X NC • 108 AXQtLSS. C- • e«Cnn»»Ti. <JM 

3
Case: 1:17-cv-00643-SJD-KLL Doc #: 107 Filed: 02/02/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 5802
Case: 1:17-cv-00643-SJD-KLL Doc #: 107 Filed: 02/02/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 5803
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00356]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2628-066]


Alabama Power Company; Notice of Technical Teleconference

    On January 20, 2022, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) staff will host a technical teleconference to discuss 
details of the models used to evaluate alternative operating curves and 
downstream releases for relicensing Alabama Power Company's (Alabama 
Power) R.L. Harris Hydroelectric Project No. 2628 (Harris Project).
    a. Date and Time of Teleconference: Thursday, January 20, 2022, 
from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
    b. FERC Contact: Sarah Salazar at 202-502-6863, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#66150714070e4815070a071c0714260003140548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="addeccdfccc583deccc1ccd7ccdfedcbc8dfce83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>.
    c. Purpose of Teleconference: On November 23, 2021, Alabama Power 
filed an application to relicense the Harris Project. The application 
includes analysis and proposals based on results of studies that 
involved the use of models, including the Hydrologic Engineering 
Center's River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) and Hydrologic Engineering 
Center's Reservoir System Simulation (HEC-ResSim). On December 23, 
2021, Commission staff issued additional information requests (AIRs) 
regarding the models. Alabama Power representatives requested a 
teleconference so their modeling experts can address the AIRs.
    d. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other 
interested parties are invited to attend and observe the technical 
teleconference. Attendees will be in listen-only mode, and will have an 
opportunity to ask questions pertaining to the models at the end of the 
teleconference. Please contact Allan Creamer at (202) 502-8365, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ec8d80808d82c28f9e898d81899eac8a899e8fc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="46272a2a272868253423272b2334062023342568212930">[email protected]</span></a> by January 17, 2022, to RSVP for the 
teleconference. Details will be provided by Commission staff once 
attendance is confirmed. Commission staff will prepare a summary of the 
teleconference and issue it to the Commission's e-library under the 
Harris Project docket (P-2628).

    Dated: January 5, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00356 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Syndication, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
      Mrutyunjaya S. Chittavajhula., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:




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




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





Dated:
                November 18, 2007
            /s/
                Mrutyunjaya S. Chittavajhula.
              Mrutyunjaya
                S. Chittavajhula.
              Chief
                Financial Officer
#### David Joe WINBERRY *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-173

505 S.W. 2d 497

Opinion delivered February 25, 1973

*66
      *Box and Hall,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *0. H. Hargraves,*Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

LYLE Brown, Justice.

David Joe Winberry entered pleas of guilty to three felony charges and was sentenced to twelve years. Four months thereafter appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief under our Rule I. The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing and on the basis of information contained in the records. One month thereafter appellant filed a second petition for post-conviction relief and set forth grounds not contained in his first petition. The trial court treated that petition as one for appeal. Appellant contends (1) that an attorney should have been appointed to represent him in presenting his first Rule I petition, and (2) that the second petition for post-conviction relief should have been heard on its merits in that appellant did not intelligently or understandably waive all grounds for relief by the filing of his first petition.

With reference to the first point, the court was not obliged to appoint counsel for appellant, when the court determined there was no necessity for an evidentiary hearing. Rule I (D) clearly indicates that counsel shall be appointed for an indigent defendant when there is to be a hearing conducted on the defendant’s petition.

With respect to the second point, appellant was not entitled to file a second petition for post-conviction relief. Rule I (H) requires all grounds for relief to be stated in the original or amended petition. *Owen*v. *State,*249 Ark. 903, 462 S.W. 2d 469 (1971); *Grayer*v. *State,*242 Ark. 640, 414 S.W. 2d 870 (1967).

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **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 World Am, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
        10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, C. Robert
        Kline, Chief Financial Officer 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 14, 2008
              /s/
                  C. Robert KlineBy:
                  C. Robert KlineIts:
                  Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        World Am, Inc. and will be retained by World Am, Inc. and furnished to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
W h iteh e a d v . S ta te , N o. 11- 05- 00179- C R , 2006 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 10772 ( T ex. 1 A p p . — E astl an d D ec . 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 ) (no t des ign ated fo r pu b li ca ti o n ). 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 234- 07
BU FO R D G LE N W H I TE H EA D , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE ELEVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

EAS TLAND CO UNTY P e r Cu r i a m. O P I N I O N T he j ur yfound B ufor d G l en W hi t ehea d g u il ty o f the t hi r d degr ee f el onyoffe ns e of bai l j um pi ng and fa i l ur e t o appea r . A ft erfi ndi ng t hatW hi t ehea d had tw o p ri orfel ony convi ct i ons, o n e fo r aggr avat ed as s aul tw i t h a dea dl yw eapon a nd one foraggr avat ed k id n a p in g , th e ju ry se n te n c e d W h ite h e a d to a te rm o f lif e im p ri s o n m e n t. W hi t ehea d appea l ed. H e al l eged thathi s l i fe s ent ence cons t i tut ed cruel and unus ual 1W H I T E H E A D —2

I d. at*1- 2. 2 I d. at*1, 3. 3 I d. at*2- 6. 4 puni s hm enti n vi ol at i on of t he U ni t ed St at es and T exas C ons t i tut i ons . H e al s o cl ai m ed t hat 2 t he evi dence w as fac tual l yi ns uffi ci ent t o s uppor tt he j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng t hathe di d nothave a
r eas o n a b l e e x c u s e f

o r f a i l i n g t o a p p e a r a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e t e r ms o f h i s r e l e a s e o n bond. 3 A ft erW hi t ehea d w as convi ct ed of t he fel onyoffe ns e of pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne, t he trial ju d g e re lea se d h im o n b o n d p e n d in g se n ten c in g so th a t W h iteh e a d c o u ld sp e n d tim e w ith hi s dy i ng father
. T h e E astl an d C our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed the tr i al cour t ’ s j udgm enti n an unpubl i s hed opi ni on. 4 W hi t ehea d pet i t i oned forr evi ew , and w e gr ant ed r evi ew t o det er m i ned w hethert he
c o u rt o f a p p e a ls e rre d in u p h o ld in g h is se n ten c e a n d f in d in g th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s f a c tu a lly
s uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng t hat W hi t ehea d’ s excus e for hi s fai l ur e t o appea rw as
n o t r e a s o n a b le
. H avi ng exami ned t he r ecor d and br i efs , w e conc l ude thatourdeci s i on t o gr antr evi ew
w as i m pr ovi dent
. W e ther efor e di s m i s s W hi t ehea d’ s pet i t i on as i m pr ovi dent l ygr ant ed.

D A T E D E L I V E R E D : A pr i l 30, 2008 D O N O T PU BL I SH
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4089 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4089

   To create and extend certain temporary district court judgeships.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2009

 Mr. Costa (for himself, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Ms. Hirono, 
  Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Terry, and Ms. 
   Sutton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To create and extend certain temporary district court judgeships.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS FOR DISTRICT COURTS.

    (a) Additional Temporary Judgeships.--
            (1) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
        the advice and consent of the Senate--
                    (A) 1 additional district judge for the eastern 
                district of California; and
                    (B) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
                Nebraska.
            (2) Vacancies not filled.--The first vacancy in the office 
        of district judge in each of the judicial districts named in 
        this subsection, occurring 10 years or more after the 
        confirmation date of the judge named to fill the temporary 
        district judgeship created in the applicable judicial district 
        by this subsection, shall not be filled.
    (b) Extension of Certain Temporary Judgeships.--Section 203(c) of 
the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-650; 28 U.S.C. 
133 note) is amended--
            (1) in the third sentence (relating to the district of 
        Kansas), by striking ``18 years'' and inserting ``26 years'';
            (2) in the sixth sentence (relating to the northern 
        district of Ohio), by striking ``18 years'' and inserting ``25 
        years''; and
            (3) in the seventh sentence (relating to the district of 
        Hawaii), by striking ``15 years'' and inserting ``20 years''.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered October 2 7 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 01032

- CR

EVER RICARDO MARTINEZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 36 6th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366

- 84380

- 2019

O RDER

Before the Court is the State ’ s October 25, 2022 motion for extension of

time to file the State ’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the State ’ s brief

received with the motion filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
EX-32.1

               CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Report on Form 10-QSB
of Capital Group One, Inc. I, Matthew McNeally Chief Executive Officer
of Capital Group One, Inc. and I, V. Terence Franzke, Chief Financial
Officer of Capital Group One, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)     such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Capital Group One, Inc.

October 15, 2007


                                By:/s/ Matthew McNeally
                                   --------------------------
                                    Matthew McNeally
                                    Chief Executive Officer


                                By:/s/ V. Terence Franzke
                                  ---------------------------
                                    V. Terence Franzke
                                    Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

EFRAIN RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:17-cv-416

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(Consent case)

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) GRANTING THE JOINT MOTION FOR REMAND 

(DOC. 13); (2) REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE 

FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; AND 

(3) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET

______________________________________________________________________________

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is presently before the Court on the parties’ 

joint motion to remand this case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings 

pursuant to the Fourth Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. 13. Based upon the stipulation of 

the parties, and for good cause shown, the ALJ’s non-disability finding is REVERSED as

unsupported by substantial evidence and the parties’ joint motion for a Sentence Four remand (doc. 

13) is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner under the Fourth Sentence 

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. The Clerk is ORDERED to enter judgment in favor 

of Plaintiff and to TERMINATE this case on the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 18, 2018 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

LISA FIJALKOWSKI, :

 : Case No. 2:17-CV-195 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

v. : 

 : Magistrate Judge Jolson 

BELMONT COUNTY BOARD OF : 

 COMMISSIONERS, et al., : 

 : 

Defendants. : 

 Based on the representation to the Court by Counsel that the parties to this lawsuit have 

resolved their dispute, the parties agree that the terms of their settlement agreement need not be 

placed upon the record at this time, but a Dismissal Order dismissing this case with prejudice 

shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. 

 This matter is now terminated by settlement and shall be considered, pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41, dismissed without prejudice as to all claims, until the parties file the above-referenced 

Dismissal Order dismissing this matter with prejudice, unless the case is reopened for good cause 

shown upon proper motion of one or more parties to this action. The Court will retain continuing 

jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. 

 The Court hereby directs the U.S. District Court Clerk to serve upon all parties notice of 

this judgment and its date of Order upon the journal. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 _______________________________ 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: July 28, 2021

Case: 2:17-cv-00195-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 88 Filed: 07/28/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 1297
#### Earnest L. BAKER v. LOCKHART, Director, Board of Pardons and Parole

85-293

702 S.W.2d 403

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered January 21, 1986

*92Appellant, *pro se.*

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Theodore Holder,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

In July, 1985, appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on the ground that he had been denied due process and equal protection of law by being twice denied release on parole. The trial court concluded that a writ of habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to challenge the parole board’s action and dismissed the petition. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and lodged the record. He now requests appointment of counsel.

 The motion is denied and the appeal dismissed. A petition for writ of habeas corpus is restricted to the questions of whether the petitioner is in custody pursuant to a valid conviction and whether the convicting court had proper jurisdiction. *Bargo*v. *State,*279 Ark. 180, 650 S.W.2d 227 (1983); *Mitchell*v. *State,*233 Ark. 578, 346 S.W.2d 201 (1961). As a writ of habeas corpus is not a remedy for attacking parole decisions, appellant could not prevail on appeal. For this reason, there is no good cause to appoint counsel or to continue with the appeal.

Motion denied & appeal dismissed.

Purtle, J., not participating.