alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, INCORPORATED, Rocky Mountain Corporation, Kenneth Odell Crawford-President & Registered Agent; Joyce Crawford-Secretary, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-5305.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 26, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 9, 2011.

Seth A. Neyhart, Stark Law Group, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Jeb T. Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Ramin Fatehi, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*876PER CURIAM:

Rocky Mountain Corporation appeals the district court’s amended order of forfeiture and its denial of Rocky Mountain’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis.* Rocky Mountain maintains its underlying guilty plea to conspiracy to launder money and evade currency reporting requirements was involuntary and that it was denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy that is available only under circumstances compelling relief in order to achieve justice. *United States v. Morgan,*346 U.S. 502, 512-13, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954). The burden is on Rocky Mountain to show that it is entitled to relief; the challenged proceedings are presumed to be correct. *Id.*To meet its burden, Rocky Mountain must show that a more usual remedy is unavailable; that valid reasons exist for not attacking its conviction earlier; that adverse consequences flow from the conviction so that there exists a case or controversy; and that the error is of the most fundamental character. *Matus-Leva v. United States,*287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir.2002).

Rocky Mountain has failed to meet its burden to show that valid reasons exist for not attacking its conviction earlier. Although there is no firm limitation of time within which a writ of coram nobis will lie, petitioners are required to demonstrate that “sound reasons exist[] for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief.” *Morgan,*346 U.S. at 512, 74 S.Ct. 247. We hold that Rocky Mountain’s bare assertion that it received ineffective assistance of counsel is insufficient to demonstrate a valid reason for waiting more than one year to challenge its conviction.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.*

*

 Although Rocky Mountain’s notice of appeal identifies both orders as the basis for this appeal, Rocky Mountain has failed to raise, and has therefore abandoned, any argument with respect to the amended order of forfeiture. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9); *Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).
# C_2020068EN.01003101.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov

(Case C-852/19)

(2020/C 68/33)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Ivan Gavanozov

Questions referred

Is national legislation which does not provide for any legal remedy against the issuing of a European Investigation Order for the search of residential and business premises, the seizure of certain items and the hearing of a witness compatible with Article 14(1) to (4), Article 1(4) and recitals 18 and 22 of Directive 2014/41/EU (1) and with Articles 47 and 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Articles 13 and 8 of the ECHR?

Can a European Investigation Order be issued under those circumstances?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ 2014, L 130, p. 1).

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory Docs





- Molecular Plant Pathology Main Page
- MPPL retired scientists
- Pseudomonas kuykendallii - new!
- 'Candidatus Phytoplasma pruni' - new!
- MPPL's Retired Scientists
- Spiroplasma kunkelii
- Phytoplasma Resource Center
- Phytoplasma classification database
- Grapevine Yellows
- Xylella fastidiosa
- viroids
- Potato spindle tuber viroid
- viruses
- Potato Yellow vein virus
- Beet mosaic virus
- peach
- sugarbeet root maggot
- citrus
- Grapes
- Alfalfa
- plant-bacterial recognition

[Missing Title]headline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JACQUELINE K. RIBES, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1320 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Frederick R. Hardt, Judge. Michael Robert Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
J

- S22012

- 19

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JOHN BROWN AND SANDRA BROWN

v.

CHRISTOPHER HOOVER AND VIRGINIA HOOVER

Appellants : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1759 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered September 24, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil Division at No(s): 2016

- CV

- 09224

- QT

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 30, 2019 Christopher and Virginia Hoover (“ the Hoovers”) appeal the September 2 4 , 2018 order granting an easement over their commercial property to John and Sandra Brown (“Browns”) pursuant to a n oral settlement agreement entered on the record. N.T., 11/1/17, at 1

– 4 . We remand for the preparation of a trial court opinion and supplementation of the record, and we retain jurisdiction. As ordered by the trial court, the Hoovers filed a timely statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). T he trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion , in which it refers to its November 19, 2018 order as adequately addressing the claims raised in the Hoovers’ Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) s tatement. Trial Court Opinion, 12/13/18. However, the trial court’s November 19, 2018 order indicates only that the trial court denied the motionJ

- S22012

- 19

- 2

-

for reconsideration because “the September 24, 2018 Order represents the terms that were agreed to by the pa rties on November 1, 2017.” Order, 11/19/18. The lack of trial court analysis on the merits of the claims raised
in the Hoovers’ Rule 1925(b) statement hampers o ur review . Thus, w e remand this matter to the trial court for preparation of an opinion purs uant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) within thirty days of the date of this order. The Rule 1925(a) opinion is to include the trial court’s findings of facts, conclusions of law, and a comprehensive analysis of the merits of the Hoovers’ claims of error and the reasons for its entry of the September 24, 2018 order. Additionally, the certified record does not contain a transcript of the August 24, 2018 hearing, the lack of which also hampers our review. “It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide a comp lete record to the appellate court on appeal ....” McNeal v. Eaton Corp. , 806 A.2d 899 (Pa. Super. 2002). Thus, we direct the Hoovers to supplement the record with a certified copy of the August 24, 2018 hearing transcript within thirty days of the date o f this order. Case remanded. Panel j urisdiction retained.
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of Co-Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Co-Chief Executive Officers and the Chief Financial Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
each hereby certifies that, to his/her knowledge on the date hereof:



| |  | /s/MICHAEL L. CAMPBELLMichael L. Campbell Co-Chief Executive
OfficerMarch 16, 2004
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/KURT C. HALLKurt C. Hall Co-Chief Executive OfficerMarch 16, 2004              
| |  | /s/AMY E. MILESAmy E. Miles Chief Financial OfficerMarch 16, 2004                 

---

QuickLinks
1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-4121

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Coauthemoc Munoz, also known as * Javier, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 2, 1999 Filed: June 9, 1999

___________ Before HANSEN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Coauthemoc Munoz, a citizen of the Republic of Mexico, appeals following the district court’s 1 imposition of sentence upon his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute methamphetami ne, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). At sentencing, Mr. Munoz requested a 2-level downward departure from the applicable Guidelines range under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0 (1998), based on-2-

his consent to an administrative deportation and his agreement not to appeal the deportation order. The court denied Mr. Munoz’s request and sentenced him at the bottom of the range to 151 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. This appeal followed, in which Mr. Munoz challenges the district court’s refusal to depart.
We conclude that the district court’s remarks at sentencing clearly evince recognition of its authority to depart under section 5K2.0, and that the court simply declined to exercise its discretion in this case. See United States v. Hernandez-Reyes , 114 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir. 1997) (when district court correctly understands it has authority to depart on particular basis from applicable Guidelines range, and makes discretionary decision not to do so, decision is unreviewable on appeal absent unconstitutional motive). Mr. Munoz contends that his sentence is reviewable because the court sentenced him mechanically, in violation of his constitutional rights. The sentencing transcript belies this argument. The court adopted the presentence report’s (PSR’s) uncontested findings; refrained from imposing a fine, citing Mr. Munoz’s financial circumstances; sentenced him at the bottom of the Guidelines range; and made clear that his case was unlike those in which the court had granted departure, particularly in that he had illegally reentered the country and had violated the law, after being deported following a prior robbery conviction. Thus, we conclude that the district court’s decision is unreviewable. See id. at 802-03.
Mr . Munoz also argues that the district court improperly relied on the PSR in denying his motion for departure. This argument fails. In making its ruling, the court relied on the PSR’s uncontested findings that Mr. Munoz was previously convicted of armed robbery and had been deported; the court stated at the beginning of the hearing that it would not consider those matters to which Mr. Munoz had lodged objections. See United States v. Garrett , 161 F.3d 1131, 1132 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 11




LIVEREEL MEDIA CORPORATION
 CODE OF ETHICS
 FOR
 
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OR CONTROLLER
 AND PERSONS PERFORMING SIMILAR FUNCTIONS
 
 
 General Philosophy
 
 The honesty, integrity and sound judgment of LiveReel Media Corporation (“LiveReel ” or the “Company”) Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Controller and persons performing similar functions (collectively the “Principal Officers”) is fundamental to our reputation and success.  The professional and ethical conduct of the Principal Officers is essential to the proper functioning and success of LiveReel.
 
 Applicability
 
 This Code of Ethics shall apply to LiveReel’s Principal Officers.
 
 Standards of Conduct
 
 To the best of their knowledge and ability, the Principal Officers shall:
 
 ·
act with honesty and integrity, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships;
 
 ·
provide full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that LiveReel files with, or submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and in other public communications made by LiveReel;
 
 ·
comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations;
 
 ·
promote the prompt internal reporting of violations of this Code of Ethics to LiveReel’s board of directors and outside legal counsel;
 
 ·
respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of employment;
 
 ·
maintain the skills necessary and relevant to LiveReel’s needs; and
 
 ·
proactively promote ethical and honest behavior among employees of LiveReel and its subsidiary.
 
 All Principal Officers are expected to adhere to the LiveReel Code of Ethics.  Any violation of this Code of Ethics will be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including dismissal from the Company and prosecution under the law.  The board of directors shall have responsibility for administration of this Code of Ethics and shall have the sole and absolute discretionary authority to approve any deviation or waiver from this Code of Ethics for Principal Officers.  In the event that a waiver of, modification of and/or change to this Code of Ethics is approved and granted, then the notice of the waiver, modification, and/or change shall be disclosed as may be required by SEC rules or the rules of any exchange on which the securities of the Company are then trading.
# C_2020045EN.01001601.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 October 2019 — The North of England P & I Association Ltd., at the same time acting as legal successor for Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-786/19)

(2020/C 45/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The North of England P & I Association Ltd., at the same time acting as legal successor for Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Question referred

Is the second indent of Article 2(d) in conjunction with the first clause of Article 25(1) of Directive 88/357/EEC (1)and/or Article 46(2) of Directive 92/49/EEC (2) with regard to the determination of the Member State where the risk is situated to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of safeguarding against risks in connection with the operation of a seagoing vessel, the State concerned is the State in whose territory a seagoing vessel is entered in an official register for the purposes of proof of ownership, or the State whose flag is flown by the seagoing vessel?

---

(1)  Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.* Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 11, 2021.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas* (Karen Smith, Director, Applications) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

1. *Plains Bancorp, Inc., Dimmit, Texas;* to acquire Childress Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire First Bank & Trust Company, both of Childress, Texas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 8, 2021.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2021-14876 Filed 7-12-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Hal M. Krisbergh, thePrincipal Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Qof WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended June 30,2006, which this certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or78o(d)) and information contained in the June 30, 2006 Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toWorldGate and will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: August 14, 2006 | /s/ HAL M. KRISBERGH           |
|------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                   | Hal M. Krisbergh               |
|                   | Chief Executive  Officer       |
|                   | (Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----