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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALAND TRACY HALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-92, CA-98-469-R)

Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aland Tracy Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Aland Tracy Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Hall, Nos. CR-94-92;

CA-98-469-R (W.D. Va. July 28, 1998). 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
Cite as 2015 Ark. 86

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-14-975

RALPH MALONE

 APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

 APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered February 26, 2015

PRO SE MOTIONS FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

TO FILE BELATED BRIEF [PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 60CR07-4847]

HONORABLE BARRY A. SIMS, JUDGE

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS

MOOT.

PER CURIAM

On February 13, 2009, judgment was entered reflecting that appellant Ralph Malone had

entered a plea of guilty to rape and had been sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. On

March 18, 2014, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se motion seeking to proceed with a 

belated appeal of the judgment. The motion was dismissed on the ground that the trial court

did not have authority to consider it, and appellant lodged an appeal in this court. He now asks

by motions that counsel be appointed to represent him and that he be allowed to file a belated

brief. As it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail on appeal, the appeal is

dismissed, and the motions are moot. See Winters v. State, 2014 Ark. 399, 441 S.W.3d 22 (per

curiam). 

Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 2(e) (2014) provides that only this court

may grant leave to proceed with a belated appeal. Gray v. State, 277 Ark. 442, 642 S.W.2d 306 

(1982). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing the motion.
Cite as 2015 Ark. 86

Appeal dismissed; motions moot.

Ralph Malone, pro se appellant.

No response.

2
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

----

 
| R. MILTON GOOLSBY, C.P.A.   |
|-----------------------------|
| JOHN W. ARTIS, C.P.A.       |
| LARRY J. WITHERS, C.P.A.    |
| STEPHEN W. KANOUSE, C.P.A.  |
| DELMAR H. FRALEY, C.P.A.    |
| RODNEY M. ROBINETTE, C.P.A. |
|                        |   |   |
|                        |
| G. DALE SWENTZEL, C.P.A.    |
| STUART T. BLEVINS, C.P.A.   |
| DAVID K. WHALEY, C.P.A.     |
| SHARON K. KRETZER, C.P.A.   |
| THERESA C. LYONS, C.P.A.    |

 

**Smith, Goolsby,****Artis & Reams,****P.S.C.**

 

 

**CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

**P.O. BOX 551      1330CARTER AVE.**

**ASHLAND, KENTUCKY 41105-0551**

**(606) 329-1171   FAX(606) 325-0590**

 

Board of Directors

Classic Bancshares, Inc.

Ashland, Kentucky

 

**INDEPENDENTAUDITOR’S CONSENT**

 

The Board of Directors

Classic Bancshares, Inc.

Ashland, Kentucky

 

 

We hereby consent to incorporate by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-09385, 333-09409, and 333-43481) of our reportdated June 11, 2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements ofClassic Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2002 and 2001 and foreach of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2002, which reportappears in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Classic Bancshares, Inc. for thefiscal year ended March 31, 2002.

 
| /s/***Smith, Goolsby, Artis & Reams,  P.S.C.*** |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                |   |
| Ashland, Kentucky                                   |   |
| June 28, 2002.                                      |   |

 

 

1

----
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:7
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:8
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:9
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:10
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:11
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:12
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:13
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:14
Case: 1:02-cv-07950 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/02 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:15
----

Action brought on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-216/05)

(2005/C 193/17)

Language of the case: English

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr Xavier Lewis, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Irish planning law provides that participation fees can be charged to members of the public by planning authorities and by a planning appeals board for submitting observations or expressing opinions in planning procedures and for submitting observations in planning appeals. The Commission submits that the levying of such participation fees constitutes a breach of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC, on the following grounds:

----

(1)OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 40

(2)OJ L 73, 14.03.1997, p. 5

----
#### In re HOCHFELDER.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Second Department.

March, 1907.)

In the matter of the application of Julius Hocbfelder for admission to the bar.

No opinion. Application granted.
#### In the Matter of Anthony Steward, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 917]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review two determinations of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

*1524Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging two determinations finding him guilty of violating various prison disciplinary rules following two tier III disciplinary hearings. The first misbehavior report charged petitioner with drug use — after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of opiates — and violating urinalysis testing procedures. The second misbehavior report, charging petitioner with obstructing the view into his cell, refusing a direct order and making threats, stated that petitioner refused to remove a sheet hanging in his cell and threatened to stab anyone who entered.

Our review of the record establishes that the misbehavior reports, as well as evidence and testimony at the hearings, provide substantial evidence to support the determinations of guilt *(see Matter of Webb v Leclaire,*52 AD3d 1131, 1132-1133 [2008]; *Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*8 AD3d 850, 851 [2004]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer properly removed petitioner from the first hearing after petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with the Hearing Officer’s warnings to stop interrupting and disrupting the proceeding *(see Matter of Pitts v Fischer,*54 AD3d 477 [2008]; *Matter of Marie v Goord,*34 AD3d 1019 [2006]). Further, the record belies petitioner’s assertion that the determinations of guilt resulted from hearing officer bias rather than from the evidence presented at the hearings *(see Matter of Harvey v Bradt,*81 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2011]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Peters, P.J., Spain, Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determinations are confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20475

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 13, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard Cruz, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Richard Cruz, federal prisoner # 60692-079, appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He was found guilty by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 235 months in prison.

Cruz contends that Amendment 709 to the sentencing guidelines applies retroactively to his criminal history calculation because the amendment is a clarifying amendment. He asserts that as a result of the amendment, his criminal history score should be recalculated.

The decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is discretionary, so the denial of a § 3582(c) motion is reviewed for abuse of that discretion. *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*-U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177 L.Ed.2d 1064 (2010). The district court is authorized to reduce a sentence based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by the Sentencing Commission only if the amendment to the guidelines is listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c). *See*§ 3582(c)(2); § 1B1.10(a)(1); § 1B1.10, comment. (n.l(A)); *United States v. Gonzalez-Bald*
      *222
      *eras,*105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.1997). Amendment 709 is not listed in § lB1.10(c), so the district court was not authorized to reduce the sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), and the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. *See Evans,*587 F.3d at 672, 674.

Cruz’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no right to appointed counsel in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir.1995). Moreover, because the district court was not authorized to grant § 3582(c)(2) relief, the interest of justice does not require appointment of counsel. *Cf. United States v. Robinson,*542 F.3d 1045, 1052 (5th Cir.2008) (finding that the interest of justice required the appointment of counsel where appeal raised issues not previously resolved by this court’s precedent).

AFFIRMED; Motion DENIED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
----

            COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2005/82/CFSP

of 31 January 2005         

repealing Common Positions 2002/401/CFSP on Nigeria, 2002/495/CFSP on Angola, 2002/830/CFSP on Rwanda and 2003/319/CFSP on the Lusaka Ceasefire agreement and the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

Common Positions 2002/401/CFSP (1) on Nigeria, 2002/495/CFSP (2) on Angola, 2002/830/CFSP (3) on Rwanda and 2003/319/CFSP (4) on the Lusaka Ceasefire agreement and the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo, are hereby repealed.

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the day of its publication.

Article 3

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 31 January 2005.

For the Council

The President

J. ASSELBORN            

----

(1)OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 167, 26.6.2002, p. 9.

(3)OJ L 285, 23.10.2002, p. 3.

(4)OJ L 115, 9.5.2003, p. 87.

----
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3798

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Leticia Maria Caballero, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2007

Filed: December 13, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leticia Caballero appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed following her

guilty plea to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and to possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams

or more of methamphetamine mixture in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Caballero

was sentenced to serve two concurrent terms of 120 months in prison (the statutory

mandatory minimum) and 5 years of supervised release. Caballero’s counsel has
2

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

-2-

moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that Caballero’s sentence is unreasonable.

 

Caballero’s sentence is not unreasonable because in these circumstances the

district court did not have discretion to impose a sentence below the mandatory

minimum sentence. See United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006)

(rejecting argument that district court had discretion to impose non-Guidelines

sentence when portion of sentence is result of mandatory minimum sentence;

“Booker2

 does not relate to statutorily-imposed sentences”); United States v. Chacon,

330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority for district court to depart from

statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only

when government makes motion for substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for

safety-valve relief).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to

withdraw, and the judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                  INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON FORM 10-K
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            NOT FILED PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation do
hereby certify as follows:

     Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the
     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may
     be applicable to this Report on Form 10-K, the undersigned hereby certify
     that this Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of
     section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
     information contained in this Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO
     Geospace Corporation.


                                                       /s/ Thomas T. McEntire
                                                      -------------------------
                                                Name:   Thomas T. McEntire
                                                Title:  Chief Financial Officer
                                                        December 2, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1176 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1176

To guarantee that Federal agencies identify State agencies and counties 
 as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning 
     responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 1997

 Mr. Thomas (for himself and Mr. Craig) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To guarantee that Federal agencies identify State agencies and counties 
 as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning 
     responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.

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

                              short title

    Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local 
Government Participation Act of 1997''. 
    Sec. 2. Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (43 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is amended)--
            (1) by striking ``any Federal agency which has'' in the 
        first full sentence after subparagraph (v); and
            (2) inserting in lieu thereof ``Federal and State agencies, 
        and county governments which have''.
```
**Exhibit 13.1. 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 on Form 20-F of Koninklijke KPN N.V., a public company with limited liability organized under the laws of The Netherlands (the “Company”), for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

|   | 1.) | the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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, and for, the periods presented in the Report. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated: March 5, 2008

 

 

Ad Scheepbouwer

Chairman of the Board of Management and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Marcel Smits

Member of the Board of Management and Chief Financial Officer

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 6, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00782

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.R

- A.A.

,

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Tria l Court No. 15189A Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s request for supplementation of the record is granted. A transcript of the proceedings on August 11, 2016 has been filed, but no exhibits were filed. We order court reporter Kelly M. Grossman to file a supplemental record containing the exhibits offered and admitted at the August 11, 2016 proceedings in this case. The supplemental record is due January 16, 2017.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNES S WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of January, 2017

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of IBSG International, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, I, Michael Rivers, President, Chief Executive Officer , hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

| | 1.       
               Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
               quarter ended June 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IBSG International, Inc.
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 4, 2004

By: /s/ Michael RiversPresident and Chief
Executive Officer