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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6684

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES JACOB PARRISH, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00347-TLW-1; 3:20-cv03607-TLW)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Jacob Parrish, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6684 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

James Jacob Parrish, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parrish 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 contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6684 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
`Exhibit 31.1

                                              CERTIFICATION


I, Kelly Absher, certify that:

1.       I have  reviewed  this  annual  report  on Form  10-K,  and all  reports  on Form 8-K  containing
distribution  or  servicing  reports  filed in  respect of periods  included  in the year  covered by this
annual report, of the Select Notes Trust LT 2003-1;

2.       Based on my knowledge,  the information in these reports,  taken as a whole, 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 as of the last
day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.       Based on my knowledge,  the distribution or servicing  information required to be provided to the
depositor by the trustee under the pooling and  servicing,  or similar  agreement,  for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;

4.       I am responsible  for reviewing the  activities  performed by the depositor and the trustee under
the pooling and  servicing,  or similar  agreement and based upon my knowledge  and the annual  compliance
review  required  under that  agreement,  and except as disclosed in the reports,  the  depositor  and the
trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

In giving  the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied on  information  provided  to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank Trust National Association.


                                                        By:  /s/ Kelly Absher                 
                                                              Name:     Kelly Absher
                                                              Title:    Authorized Signatory
                                                              Structured Obligations Corporation
                                                              Date:  March 28, 2007`

---

``
0$-<f<t- (70S- Q^

EX PARTE MARLON DION LOTT Habeas Corpus Application

NO. ?3>154 from COLLIN Cppg^i^Q

COURT OF APPEALS

OPINION

SEP 2 1 1998

This isapost-conviction application for writ ofhabeas corpus forwarded toLISft^OMBOK

CLERK, 5th DISTRICT

pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery and

sentenced to 65 years in prison. This conviction was affirmed. Lott v. State, No.05-94-

01705-CR (Tex.App. - Dallas, delivered April 30, 1996, no pet.).

Applicantcontendsthat he was deniedhis right to petitionthis Court for discretionary

review of the Court of Appeals' opinion because he was not timely informed that the

conviction had been affirmed. The record indicates that Applicant never received a copy of

the appellate opinion which counsel sent to him. Applicant is entitled to relief.

Accordingly, Applicant is granted leave to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary

review from the Court of Appeals' judgment in cause number No.05-94-01705-CR,

affirming the conviction in cause number 366-80390-94 in the 366th Judicial District Court

ofCollin County, Texas. The proper remedy in a case such as this is to allow Applicant to

file his petitionwith the Court ofAppeals within thirty days ofthe issuance ofthis Court's

mandate.

DELIVERED: September 16, 1998

DO NOT PUBLISH

PER CURIAM
Court of Criminal gppeate

pox 12308

Capitol Station

gustm^exa* 78711

i

~,-i c» ~f,-*b._«P S*~ ZT^^

nr.cc.

SEP i7"38

LISA ROMBOK

dS?7526002° C0^RCE 2ND FLOOR

73,154

?aL_ 

'2>4#l&234 ""•'♦'•'"'IiIIIimiiI,!,!,,!! i/i „„| ii j|j i{ 

'"ii>nitll»l!lf|{|Hiiil
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(2)
              - (-)products_data(1)
              - products_publications(5)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(4)

## By Location

              - alaska(34)
              - arizona(1)
              - arkansas(2)
              - california(10)
              - colorado(4)
              - hawaii(3)
              - idaho(1)
              - illinois(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - missouri(7)
              - montana(5)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(6)
              - (-)new jersey(1)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(1)
              - texas(3)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(6)
              - wyoming(4)

## By Year

Data Release        February 22, 2022        Basin characteristics rasters for New Jersey StreamStats 2022
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(4)
              - (-)news_news-149248(1)
              - news_other_news(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(4)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(4)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(1)
              - (-)oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - tennessee(1)
              - washington(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

National News Release        February 17, 2017        A Fresh Look at Old Data Sheds Light on Central U.S. Quake Origins and Potential
Shaune H. JOHNSON, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF REVENUE, O/B/O Lizzie J. MAZZIE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0130

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
K.K., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-0844

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 26, 2018

K.K., a juvenile, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 05-3518 File Name: 06a0148n.06 Filed: February 24, 2006 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PARKER HANNIFIN CORP., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. DAYCO PRODUCTS, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: NELSON, SUHRHEINRICH , and GRIFFIN , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment involving the same parties and the same asset purchase agreement that were before us in Parker Hannifin Corporation v. Dayco Products, LLC., et al., 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 9779 (6 thCir. 2005) (unpublished). There, as here, two issues werepresented: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for change of venue pursuant to a mandatory forum selection provision in the agreement, and (2) whether the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the agreement did not make the purchaser answerable for product liability claims relating to a line of business that had been discontinued years before the agreement was entered into. As to the first issue, we said in the prior case that although the forum selection clause was a significant factor in the required calculus, the clause was not a dispositive factor. TheNo. 05-3518 Page 2 district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant the requested transfer, we held in the earlier case, and no persuasive reason has been offered for our reaching the opposite conclusion here. As to the second issue, it has now been established that terminated lines of business are not subsumed within the contractual phrase “business as currently conducted.” Liabilities pertaining to the business as currently conducted are the only liabilities that the agreement affirmatively commits the purchaser (Parker Hannifin) to assume. The seller (Dayco) points out that the assumption undertaking also excepts liabilities retained by Dayco, and Dayco argues that the agreement’s definition of “Ret ained Liabilities” creates an ambiguity with respect to the discontinued product line at issue here that is sufficient to permit the introduction of extrinsic evidence and thus bar the granting of summary judgment. The district court considered this argument and rejected it. We fully agree with the district court’s reasoning, and we AFFIRM the challenged judgment in all respects on the strength of the district court’s opinion.
exhibit101.htm


    
      Exhibit 10.1


    

    

     

    
      
        	
                Georgia
      Department of

              	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                Community
      Health

              	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                2 Peachtree Street,
      NW

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                Atlanta,
      GA 30303-3159

              
	
                Rhonda
      M. Medows, MD, Commissioner

              	 
      	
                Sonny
      Perdue, Governor

              	 
      	
                www.dch.georgia.gov

                 

              


      

    

    
 

    June 13,
2008

    


    Sent
Via:  Certified Mail; Return Receipt Requested

    


    


    Mike
Cadger

    Peach
State Health Plan

    3200
Highland Pkwy., SE

    Suite
300

    Smyrna,
Georgia 30082

    


    Re:           NOTICE
OF RENEWAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

    Contract #0653 Medicaid Managed
Care

    


    Dear Mr.
Cadger:

    


    This letter serves as written notice
that the Georgia Department of Community Health (hereinafter “DCH” or the
“Department”) is exercising its option to Renew the above-referenced
contract for an additional State Fiscal year, subject to the terms and
conditions of the underlying contract (the “Contract”) and any applicable
subsequent amendments.  The Contract, as renewed, shall terminate on
June 30,
2009.  All terms and conditions of the contract, including
reimbursement, shall remain as stated in the original contract and any
amendments thereto.

    


    Please contact me at (404)-463-0348 or
via email at pgordon@dch.ga.gov
should you have any questions or require additional information.  We
look forward to continuing with your contract in Fiscal Year 2009.

    


                Sincerely,

    


                /s/ Pamela
Gordon

    


                Pamela
Gordon

                Contract Specialist
II

     

     

    


    cc:           Clyde
White, Director of Contracts

    Mark Trail

    Vendor Management

    File
Ted YOUNG, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1086

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 17, 2018 Rehearing Denied September 20, 2018

Ted Young, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Osterhaus and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John E. Jackson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hanover Compression Limited Partnership; 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. The registrants other certifying officers and I are 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 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
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 officers 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 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: March 22, 2005 By:
    
    /s/ John E. JacksonName:
    
    John E. JacksonTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7251

GEORGE GRANT, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

CAPTAIN BRYANT; MS SWANEY, Kitchen Supervisor

of Anderson County Detention Center; JOEY

PRESTON, County Administrator; DAVID CRENSHAW,

Sheriff; COUNTY OF ANDERSON,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (0:07-cv-00278-GRA)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Grant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE,

O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

George Grant, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Grant v. Bryant, No.

0:07-cv-00278-GRA (D.S.C. Aug. 9, 2007). 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
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 Annual Report of Filtering Associates, Inc. a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Edward Wiggins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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

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



/s/ Edward Wiggins
--------------------------
Edward Wiggins
Chief Financial Officer
May 11, 2005
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
  I, J. Dan Sifford , president/director, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of First Auto, Inc, a Nevada Corporation, on Form 10-QSB of November 30, 2003;
  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 officers 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 have:
  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
  5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
  6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
   
 Dated: November 30, 2003
 
 /s/J. Dan Sifford
 J. Dan Sifford
 President/Director
# C_2020343EN.01000601.xml

| 15.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9622 — EUROVIA Industrie/ASA-Bau/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 343/02)

On 17 December 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9622. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9622. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---