alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 65**  **25**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DARYL WENDELL BARLEY, a/k/a Black , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Danville
. Jackson L. Kiser , Senior District Judge. ( 4 : 10

- cr - 00 010

- JLK

- RSB

- 1 ; 4 : 12

- cv - 80417

- JLK

RSB )

Submitted : August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Daryl Wendell Barley , Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bindin g precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daryl Wendell Barley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merit s, 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional ri ght. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is 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 June 23, 2009

d0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

137482(53)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137482 COA: 276454 Gr Traverse CC: 06-010096-FH CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM KELLMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s January 27, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust II and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding II, L.P. (the
"Partnership") for the period ended September 26, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John J.
Fosina, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the 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:

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

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




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ JOHN J. FOSINA
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    John J. Fosina *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: November 6, 2003
_______________________

*  John J. Fosina functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Franklin Street
Properties Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, John G. Demeritt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

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


Date:  May 1, 2007                                 /s/ John G. Demeritt
                                                   -------------------------
                                                   John G. Demeritt
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 911 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 911

To establish the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and the 
  President should sign, bipartisan legislation to strengthen public 
             safety and to enhance wireless communications.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2011

    Mr. Rockefeller (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and the 
  President should sign, bipartisan legislation to strengthen public 
             safety and to enhance wireless communications.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening Public-safety and 
Enhancing Communications Through Reform, Utilization, and Modernization 
Act'' or the ``SPECTRUM Act''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and the 
President should sign, bipartisan legislation to strengthen public 
safety and to enhance wireless communications by--
            (1) providing sufficient wireless spectrum and other 
        resources to build a nationwide interoperable wireless public 
        safety broadband network;
            (2) encouraging more efficient, flexible, and effective use 
        of spectrum, a valuable and finite public resource;
            (3) promoting voluntary market mechanisms to ensure the 
        optimal allocation of spectrum;
            (4) reforming the Federal Government's spectrum management 
        practices; and
            (5) engaging in advanced research and development into 
        emerging wireless technologies.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Vega, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), rendered March 9, 1984, affirmed *609
      *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### Raoul Charbonneau Custom Logging, Inc ., Respondent, v Roger Belanger, Appellant.

Main, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Warren County (Moynihan, Jr., J.), entered August 10, 1984, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him.

Defendant has moved to vacate a default judgment against him, claiming that he never received various notices which were sent to him. County Court concluded that defendant failed to establish that his default was excusable and denied the motion. Our review of the record reveals that defendant has failed to satisfy his burden of showing a valid excuse for the default. Defendant’s actions demonstrate a repeated and consistent pattern of evading judicial processes. The affidavit of defendant’s prior attorney makes clear that defendant often did not claim mail sent to him. Certified letters were sent to defendant at his proper address, and he has offered no explanation for his repeated failure to accept such letters. Moreover, when defendant did finally appear before County Court at a hearing concerning the possible application of the homestead exemption to his real property, the sale of which was to satisfy the default judgment, he stated that he understood what had happened in the lawsuit and that he consented to his attorney drafting a proposal to pay plaintiff to satisfy the default judgment. Defendant offers no explanation for his failure to submit such a proposal. Considering these examples of defendant’s consistent pattern of delay, we believe that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to vacate the default (see, *e.g., Ryan v Ryan,*33 AD2d 969; *Lind v Port of N. Y. Auth.,*28 AD2d 984, *appeal dismissed*20 NY2d 948).

*584Furthermore, regardless of whether defendant had a reasonable excuse for his default, he has failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the underlying breach of contract action. Such failure is fatal to defendant’s motion to vacate, whether such motion was made under CPLR 317 or 5015, for both sections require the movant to demonstrate a meritorious defense *(see,*McLaughlin, 1983 Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, 1984-1985 Pocket Part, CPLR C317:l, p 240).

Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5, the Court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 05-50964

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee v. ARMANDO MARTINEZ-LOPEZ

Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, Del Rio

2:05-CR-72

--------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate sentence is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to remand case to the district court for resentencing is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed alternative motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief until 14 days after denial of motion to vacate and remand is DENIED as moot. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D April 7, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7660

ALBERT CURTIS MILLS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RUTH NEWBORN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA97-3413-DKC)

Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 14, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber,

Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

November 22, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on November 23, 1999. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Albert Curtis Mills appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42

U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) action. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Mills v. Newborn, No. CA-97-3413-DKC (D. Md. Nov. 23,

1999).* 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
<PAGE>   1




                                                                     EXHIBIT 21


                    HEALTHDYNE INFORMATION ENTERPRISES, INC.
                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                            AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                    JURISDICTION OF
                  NAME                                                               INCORPORATION
                  ----                                                               -------------
<S>                                                                                   <C>    
Criterion Health Strategies, Inc.                                                     Tennessee

DataView Imaging International, Inc.                                                  Georgia

Healthcare Communications, Inc.                                                       Texas

Integrated Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (formerly, Clinical
       Assessment Support System, Inc.)                                               Georgia
</TABLE>


Note:    The above subsidiaries (except for Criterion Health Strategies, Inc.
         in which the Company owns less than 1% equity ownership interest and
         DataView Imaging International, Inc. in which the Company owns 19.5%
         equity ownership interest) are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
         Company.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                     Subsidiaries of Visual Networks, Inc.


Visual Networks Operations, Inc. (DE)
Visual Networks Texas Operations, Inc. (DE)
Visual Networks of Texas, L.P. (TX)
Visual Networks Insurance (VT)
Visual Networks Ltd. (Bermuda)
Net2Net, LLC (DE)
Visual Networks UK Operations, Inc. (DE)
Visual Acquisitions Three, Inc. (DE)
Inverse Network Technology (CA)
Visual Networks Investments, Inc. (CA)
Visual Networks Technologies, Inc. (CA)
Visual Networks Protection, Inc. (VT)
#### Newberger Brothers, Inc., Respondent, v Mohawk Leather Company, Inc., Successor to Lipman Split Company, Inc., Appellant.

Main, J. P.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Graves, J.), entered August 27, 1984 in Montgomery County, which denied defendant’s motion for a protective order, and (2) from an order of said court, entered September 4,1984 in Montgomery County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

After plaintiff commenced this action for goods sold but not paid for, it moved for summary judgment, which was granted. We reversed (102 AD2d 927), concluding that questions of fact existed concerning whether Mohawk Leather Company, Inc. *976(Mohawk) was the successor to Lipman Split Company, Inc. (Lipman) and, thus, liable for the debts of the latter. We noted that although plaintiff failed to submit proof establishing a relationship between Mohawk and Lipman, an invoice in the name of Mohawk and dated before the time Mohawk was claimed to have come into existence raised questions of fact concerning a relationship between Mohawk and Lipman.

Defendant then moved for summary judgment claiming that the name “Mohawk Leather” was used by Lipman and that Lipman is a distinct entity from Mohawk. Plaintiff claims that the names were used by defendant interchangeably. Defendant also moved for a protective order vacating or limiting an examination before trial. Special Term denied both of defendant’s motions and these appeals from the resulting orders ensued.

We remain of the view that questions of fact exist concerning the relationship between Lipman and Mohawk. Defendant’s affidavit, by its secretary, asserts that Lipman used the name “Mohawk Leather”, but the invoice referred to above is in the name of “Mohawk Leather Co.”. Furthermore, despite assurances by defendant that Lipman used the name “Mohawk Leather” pursuant to a duly filed certificate in Montgomery County, there is no such certificate in the record. These ambiguities only compound the issue of fact concerning the relationship between Lipman and Mohawk, if any, and summary judgment was therefore properly denied. We also cannot say that, considering the trial court’s broad discretion in supervising disclosure *(see, e.g., Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 406), Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion for a protective order vacating or limiting an examination before trial.

Orders affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal L 145/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.145.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 145 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5431 May 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.145.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 145

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5431 May 2011

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1) | 1 |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 511/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Korea | 19 |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 512/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 | 28 |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 513/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies (1) | 30 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1)

2

1

*

Regulation (EU) No 511/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Korea

19

*

Regulation (EU) No 512/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011

28

*

Regulation (EU) No 513/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies (1)

30

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# Official Journal L 77/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 77 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 657 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 77

English edition

Legislation

Volume 657 March 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/352 of 29 November 2021 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 as regards the 2021 update of the taxonomy laid down in the regulatory technical standards on the single electronic reporting format (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/352 of 29 November 2021 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 as regards the 2021 update of the taxonomy laid down in the regulatory technical standards on the single electronic reporting format (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.