alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Submitted December 21, 2016;

convictions on Counts 1 and 2 reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of conviction for one count of unlawful delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed February 23;

petition for review denied June 1, 2017 (361 Or 524)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*DWAYNE EDWARD ABRAHAM, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Multnomah County Circuit Court

110833195; A159773

389 P3d 418

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erica Herb, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Susan Yorke, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

*904PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a judgment imposing convictions for, among other things, unlawful delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.882 (Count 1), and unlawful delivery of cocaine, ORS 475.880 (Count 2). We reject without written discussion defendant’s first assignment of error, and the assignment of error raised in defendant’s *pro se*supplemental brief. In his remaining assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to merge the guilty verdicts on Counts 1 and 2 as required by ORS 161.067(1). *See State v. Villarreal,*266 Or App 699, 700, 338 P3d 801 (2014) (correcting plain error where verdicts for delivery of cocaine and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school should have merged into a single conviction). The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and, for the reasons expressed in *State v. Valladares-Juarez,*219 Or App 561, 564-65, 184 P3d 1131 (2008), exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Convictions on Counts 1 and 2 reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of conviction for one count of unlawful delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION 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 quarter report on Form 10-Q of National Housing Trust Limited Partnership (the Partnership) for the period ending
September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Susan E. Basting, Chief Financial Officer of NHT, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |    |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  | -- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date  November 15, 2004 |  | By |  | /s/ Susan E. Basting                      
|                        |  |    |  | Susan E. Basting, Treasurer               
|                        |  |    |  | and Chief Financial Officer               
|                        |  |    |  | NHT, Inc., General Partner for            
|                        |  |    |  | National Housing Trust Limited Partnership
Exhibit 21.1

                                 PUBLICARD, INC
                            AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


                                                          STATE OF JURISDICTION
SUBSIDIARY                                                  OF INCORPORATION
----------                                                ---------------------
Amazing! Smart Card Technologies, Inc.                        California
Blackwold, Inc.                                               Delaware
Boxsterview, Inc.                                             Delaware
Continental Distilling Corporation                            Delaware
Greystone Peripherals, Inc.                                   California
Hanten Acquisition Co.                                        Delaware
Infineer, Inc.                                                Florida
Infineer Ltd.                                                 Northern Ireland
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc.                        Minnesota
Publicker Chemical Corporation                                Louisiana
Publicker Gasohol, Inc.                                       Delaware
Publicker, Inc.                                               Delaware
Redwold, Inc.                                                 Delaware
Sagrocry, Inc.                                                Pennsylvania
No. 11-10572.

#### Scarnati *v.*Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10634.

#### Al Tawheed, aka Ali *v.*City of Springfield, Massachusetts.

App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022424EN.01003201.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 August 2022 — Criminal proceedings against CI, VF, DY

(Case C-574/22)

(2022/C 424/42)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

CI,

VF,

DY

Question referred

Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, (1) which supplement the blanket provision of Article 354a of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code, Bulgaria) in conjunction with Article 3(4) of the Zakon za kontrol varhu narkotichnite veshtestva i prekursorite (Law on the control of narcotic substances and drug precursors), allow a person to be found guilty of possession of a category 3 substance as per Annex I, namely hydrochloric acid (hydrogen chloride) in a quantity of 585 millilitres (0,585 litres)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).

---
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 2176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-585]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WY-040-07-1060-00]

Notice of Public Hearing

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

SUMMARY: A public hearing on the use of helicopters in wild horse 
roundup activities will be held at the White Mountain Library, Grace 
Gasson Room.

DATE: February 19, 1997, 7 p.m. until 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: White Mountain Library, 2935 Sweetwater Drive, Rock Springs, 
Wyoming 82901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Chavez, District Manager, 
Rock Springs District Office, 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, 
Wyoming, (307-352-0200).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda will be limited to:
    1. Introduction and opening remarks.
    2. Review of the Wild Horse Management Plan.
    3. Use of helicopters in the Plan.
    4. Film presentation of roundup activity.
    5. Public comment period.
    The meeting is open to the public and interested persons may make 
statements on the subject.
All statements will be recorded.
Michelle Chavez,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-585 Filed 1-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5940]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-206-002]


Pacific Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Report of Linepack 
Sales

March 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, Pacific Gas Transmission 
Company (PGT), filed its Annual Report of Linepack Sales, pursuant to 
Office of Pipeline Regulation Letter Order of March 31, 1995 and 
Section 284.288 of the Commission's Regulations.
    PGT states the purpose of this filing is to report on linepack 
sales made during calendar year 1996, in compliance with the above-
referenced order and FERC regulations. PGT further states that a copy 
of this report has been served upon all jurisdictional customers, 
interested state regulatory agencies, and all parties on the service 
list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such protests must be 
filed on or before March 12, 1997. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5940 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                   TENNECO INC. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
 
              COMBINED WITH 50% OWNED UNCONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                          ------------------------------------
                                           1995    1994    1993  1992    1991
                                          ------  ------  ------ -----  ------
<S>                                       <C>     <C>     <C>    <C>    <C>
Income (loss) from continuing
 operations.............................  $  735  $  641  $  413 $(714) $ (617)
Add:
 Interest...............................     458     597     717   898     977
 Portion of rentals representative of
  interest factor.......................      59      67      67    70      69
 Preferred stock dividend requirements
  of majority-owned subsidiaries........      22      --      --    --      --
 Income tax expense and other taxes on
  income................................     273     302     258   167      63
 Amortization of interest capitalized
  applicable to nonutility companies....       5       6       6     5       5
 Interest capitalized applicable to
  utility companies.....................       2       1       1     2       4
 Undistributed (earnings) losses of
  affiliated companies in which less
  than a 50% voting interest is owned...    (112)     (4)      4    (2)     (4)
                                          ------  ------  ------ -----  ------
    Earnings as defined.................  $1,442  $1,610  $1,466 $ 426  $  497
                                          ======  ======  ====== =====  ======
Interest................................  $  458  $  597  $  717 $ 898  $  977
Interest capitalized....................       9       6       4     8      23
Portion of rentals representative of
 interest factor........................      59      67      67    70      69
Preferred stock dividend requirements of
 majority-owned subsidiaries on a pretax
 basis..................................      30      --      --    --      --
                                          ------  ------  ------ -----  ------
    Fixed charges as defined............  $  556  $  670  $  788 $ 976  $1,069
                                          ======  ======  ====== =====  ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges......    2.59    2.40    1.86  (a)     (a)
                                          ======  ======  ======
</TABLE>
--------
Note:  (a) For the years ended December 31, 1992 and 1991, earnings were
            inadequate to cover fixed charges by $550 million and $572 million,
            respectively.
# Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA)

- U.S. Department of Education Takes Action Against Five Schools for Disbursing Federal Student Aid to Students Enrolled in Unaccredited Programs Today, the U.S. Department of Education (Department)  announced settlement agreements with five law schools after a Federal Student  Aid (FSA) investigation revealed that the schools improperly disbursed Title IV funds to students enrolled in unaccredited Master of Laws (LL.M.)  programs.
- Federal Student Aid Office of Enforcement Tip Submission Do you know about illegal acts or other conduct that might violate the Higher Education Act or federal rules for institutions of higher education?We want to hear from you!Email the FSA Office of Enforcement today at FSATips@ed.gov
267 P.2d 819]

[Sac. No. 6350.

In Bank.

Mar. 1, 1954.]

#### LAWRENCE L. PICKENS et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent.

F. H. Bowers and Thomas F. Sargent for Petitioners.

McAllister & Johnson and Walter C. Frame for Respondent.

*874THE COURT.

This is a mandamus proceeding in which the judgments in consolidated actions reviewed on appeal in *Pickens*v. *Johnson, ante,*p. 399 [267 P.2d 801], are attacked on one of the grounds urged on that appeal. Inasmuch as the appeal disposes of that issue, the petition for the writ is denied and the alternative writ discharged. (See *California Toll Bridge Authority*v. *Durkee,*40 Cal.2d 341 [253 P.2d 673].)

Dooling, J. pro tem, sat in place of the Chief Justice, who deemed himself disqualified.
```

[Federal Register: September 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 179)]
[Notices]               
[Page 56516]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16se10-33]                         

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: Vol. 75, No. 175, 
Friday, September 10, 2010, page 55312.

Previously Announced Time and Date of Meeting: 10 a.m.-11 a.m., 
Wednesday September 15, 2010.

Changes in Meeting: Meeting postponed to September 22, 2010, 10 a.m.-11 
a.m. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for Additional Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of 
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-
7923.

    Dated: September 14, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23276 Filed 9-14-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Jodi Taylor, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Harold's Stores, Inc..;

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;

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;

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-159e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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;

Omitted pursuant to Exchange Act Release 34-47986

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

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

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 function):

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

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.
No. 11-10894.

#### Cox *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6684

MAURICE WILCOX,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF THE NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-01589-GBL-IDD)

Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: December 16, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Wilcox, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Wilcox seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

s0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

140851

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140851 COA: 295542 Midland CC: 05-002305-FC RICHARD ALAN DELAVERN, JR, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 4, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7636** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v.
DAVID HILL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:01

- cr - 00191

- CMH

- 1 )

Submitted : April 30, 2012 Decided: May 17, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
David Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Dabney P. Langhorne, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Hill appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion for access to documentary exhibits admitted at his criminal trial . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Hill , No. 1:01

- cr 00191

- CMH

- 1 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 17, 2011; entered Nov. 21, 2011) . 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