alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Preston HANS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6428.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Eric Preston Hans, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Preston Hans seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hans 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MICHAELSON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 22, 1912.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against David Michaelson. A. I. Hahn, for appellant. R. S. Johnstone, for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. Order filed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael L. Campbell, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Regal Entertainment Group;

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 officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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):



Date:
March 15, 2005

| |  | By: |  | /s/MICHAEL L. CAMPBELLMichael L. Campbell
Co-Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Carl F. Fahrenkrug, Chief Executive Officer of Microwave Filter Company,
Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d); 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: May 13, 2008                         /s/ Carl F. Fahrenkrug
                                                Carl F. Fahrenkrug
                                                Chief Executive Officer

<page>
                                                                    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

I, Richard L. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of Microwave Filter Company, Inc.
(the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d); 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: May 13, 2008                         /s/ Richard L. Jones
                                                Richard L. Jones
                                                Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR
TO DATE ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,945
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,396
<INVENTORY>                                    107,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               225,215
<PP&E>                                          53,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 352,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,405
<BONDS>                                         60,000<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               72
<PREFERRED>                                    115,288<F2>
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   352,356
<SALES>                                        522,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               522,302
<CGS>                                          310,195
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  211,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (664)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,269
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,724)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,724)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.29)
<FN>
<F1>Bonds represents all long-term debt for Senior Notes.
<F2>Represents Guaranteed Preferred Beneficial Interests in the corporation's
    Junior Subordinated Debenture
</FN>



</TABLE>
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 672 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the 

railroad track maintenance credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2011 

Mr. REID (for Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. MORAN, Mr. 

WYDEN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. WICKER, Mr. BOOZMAN, 

Mr. THUNE, and Ms. SNOWE)) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

and modify the railroad track maintenance credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Short Line Railroad 

5 Rehabilitation and Investment Act of 2011’’. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 672 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RAILROAD 

2 TRACK MAINTENANCE CREDIT. 

3 (a) EXTENSION OF CREDIT.—Section 45G(f) of the 

4 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘January 1, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2018’’. 

6 (b) EXPENDITURES.—Subsection (d) of section 45G 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik8 ing ‘‘for maintaining’’ and all that follows and inserting 

9 ‘‘for maintaining— 

10 ‘‘(A) in the case of taxable years beginning 

11 after December 31, 2004, and before January 

12 1, 2012, railroad track (including roadbed, 

13 bridges, and related track structures) owned or 

14 leased as of January 1, 2005, by a Class II or 

15 Class III railroad (determined without regard 

16 to any consideration for such expenditures 

17 given by the Class II or Class III railroad which 

18 made the assignment of such track), and 

19 ‘‘(B) in the case of taxable years beginning 

20 after December 31, 2011, railroad track (in21 cluding roadbed, bridges, and related track 

22 structures) owned or leased as of January 1, 

23 2012, by a Class II or Class III railroad (deter24 mined without regard to any consideration for 

25 such expenditures given by the Class II or Class 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 672 IS

1 III railroad which made the assignment of such 

2 track).’’. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 December 31, 2011. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997             DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996             DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997             JUN-28-1996
<CASH>                                           1,349                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,495                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,566                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,932                       0
<PP&E>                                         122,945                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,634                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,677                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,253                       0
<BONDS>                                        115,310                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             1                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,377                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   177,677                       0
<SALES>                                        114,455                  84,526
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,455                  84,526
<CGS>                                           85,431                  64,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,416                  81,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (138)                     223
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,788                   2,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,389                   1,117
<INCOME-TAX>                                       319                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,070                     456
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                     710
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,070                   1,166
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00845-CV

Raymond G. ROMERO,

Appellant

v.

Frank HERRERA, Jr.,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI08392

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying 

appellant’s motion to compel arbitration is REVERSED. The case is REMANDED with 

instructions for the trial court to order the parties to submit the claims at issue in the underlying 

suit to arbitration. Appellant’s appeal of the partial summary judgment order is DISMISSED FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION. We ORDER that appellant recover from appellee the costs he 

incurred related to this appeal. 

SIGNED June 12, 2019.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
#### William Campbell, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued April 21, 1890;

decided May 6, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made July 2, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of' plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*O. D. Prescott*for appellant.

*Jos. J. Dudleston, Jr.,*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                             (18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350)

I, Sherice P. Bench, Chief Financial Officer of American Achievement Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify that:

     (1) The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended August
30, 2003 (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

                                                 /s/ SHERICE P. BENCH
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Sherice P. Bench
                                          Title:   Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 17, 2003
#### Elias Recinos, Appellant, v Anthony Priamo, Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 518]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J), entered January 10, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered April 11, 2011, which, upon the order, is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the complaint. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed also to be a notice of appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that the plaintiffs violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 by failing to yield the right-of-way was the sole proximate cause of the subject collision *(see Vainer v DiSalvo,*79 AD3d 1023, 1023-1024 [2010]; *Strocchia v City of New York, 70*AD3d 926, 927 [2010]; *Sanabria v Paduch,*61 AD3d 839, 839-840 [2009]). In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Mastro, A.EJ, Hall, Lott and Sgroi, JJ, concur.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 11, 2018 *

Decided May 11, 2018

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 17

‐ 2083

ZACHARY WINTERS,

on behalf of the Estate of Howard

Winters,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant,

v

.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Deputy Commissioner for Operations,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant

‐ Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 16

‐ cv

‐ 1360

J oe Billy McDade,

J udge

.

O R D E R

Zachary Winters brings this appeal on behalf of his deceased father, Howard

Winters, who before his death had applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and

Supplemental Security Income based on his hypertension, diabetes, and learning

* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs

and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would

not significantly aid the court. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp

. P. 32.1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp

. P. 32.1No. 17

‐ 2083 Page 2

disorder. An administrative law judge determined that Howard was not disabled

between his alleged onset date in early 2013 and his death in mid

‐ 2014 because the

income he earned during this period (nearly $30,000) exceeded the regulatory limits for

benefit eligibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1574(b)(2). The Appeals Council later denied

Zachary’s request for review, and the district court upheld the Commissioner’s

decision.

On appeal Zachary does not address the district judge’s reasoning or make any

cogent legal argument that could provide a basis for disturbing the judgment. See F ED

.

R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(8); Anderson v. Hardman

, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). Regardless,

we agree with the ALJ that Howard’s roughly $30,000 in earnings exceeded the

agency’s threshold for substantial gainful activity (less than $1,040 per month in 2013

and less than $1,070 per month in 2014). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1574(a)(1), (b)(2). Substantial

evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Howard worked consistently between his

alleged onset date and the date of his death.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

 SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

JASON THORNTON, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-077 

vs. ) 

) 

SUPERINTENDENT, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

 OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28 

U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jason 

Thornton, a pro se prisoner, on February 10, 2016. For the reasons 

set forth below, the court DENIES the petition pursuant to Section 

2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and this case is DISMISSED. 

BACKGROUND 

 Jason Thornton filed a habeas corpus petition challenging WCC 

15-11-0047, a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Westville 

Correctional Facility. On November 25, 2015, the Disciplinary 

Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Inadequate Work/Study 

Performance in violation of C-371. As a result, he was sanctioned 

with a written reprimand and removed from his program/assignment. 

He did not lose any earned credit time as a result of this hearing.
DISCUSSION 

 A prison disciplinary action can only be challenged in a 

habeas corpus proceeding where it results in the lengthening of 

the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 

(7th Cir. 2003). Here, because this disciplinary proceeding did 

not result in the lengthening of the duration of his confinement, 

habeas corpus relief is not available. Because there is no relief 

that he can obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the petition 

will be denied. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the petition 

pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and this case is 

DISMISSED. 

DATED: February 26, 2016 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge 

United State District Court
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, David H. Ownby, certify that:

 

1.                             I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Regal Entertainment Group;

 

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; and

 

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.

 
| Date:   March 14, 2014 | /s/ DAVID   H. OWNBY       |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                        | David   H. Ownby                |
|                        | *Chief Financial Officer*       |
|                        | *(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----