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

**No. 15**  **- 7465** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CECIL RAY, JR., a/k/a Esco , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg
. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 3:06

- cr - 00008

- JPB

- JES

- 1; 3:10

- cv - 00057

- JPB

JES )

Submitted : March 2 5 , 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Cecil Ray, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opini ons are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cecil Ray, Jr., filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion contending, in relevant part, that his attorneys were constitutionally ineffective in advising him to reject the Government’s second plea of fer in favor of proceeding to trial, and in advising him as to his sentence exposure if he proceeded to trial. We granted a certificate of appealability on these claims and remanded his case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. See United St ates v. Ray , 547 F. App’x 343 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 13

- 6471). On remand, after the magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that counsel was not ineffective in advising Ray regarding the Government’s second plea offer or Ray’s sentencing exposure. Ray appeals for a second time. To succeed on his ineffective assistance claim, Ray must show that: (1) counsel’s failures fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial. In Lafler v. Cooper , 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384

- 85 (2012), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to the plea bargaining process, and prejudice occurs when, absent deficient advice, the defendant would have accepted a plea tha t would have resulted in a less severe conviction, sentence, or both. In Missouri v. Frye , 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1408 (2012), the Supreme Court held that3 a component of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the plea bargaining context is that counsel has a d uty to communicate any offers from the Government to his client. We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Nicholson , 611 F.3d 191, 205 (4th Cir. 2010). After reviewing the recor d and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, we find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are a dequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul R. Dean, Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed. *949Memorandum: Defendant was tried on three counts of issuing a bad check (Penal Law § 190.05) and three counts of grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.35). The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts, but the trial court dismissed the three counts of issuing a bad check as inclusory. Defendant’s appeals to this court and to the Court of Appeals were unsuccessful *(People v Dean,*56 AD2d 242, *affd*45 NY2d 651). He now appeals from an order of Monroe County Court denying his CPL 440.10 motion made on the ground that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury by unconstitutionally shifting the burden of proof to defendant. The claimed error relates solely to that part of the instructions relating to the charges of issuing a bad check, in which the court informed the jury of the statutory presumptions of knowledge of insufficient funds and of the belief that the check would be dishonored *(see,*Penal Law § 190.10 [1], [2]). Inasmuch as the trial court dismissed the bad check charges and correctly informed the jury of the burden of proof on the larceny charges, specifically placing the burden of proving intent to steal upon the People, the error, if any, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

Moreover, since the issue presented could have been raised on appeal and defendant has not shown that he was denied due process *(see, People v Codarre,*10 NY2d 361, 363, *on remittal*14 NY2d 370), his motion to set aside the conviction must be denied *(see,*CPL 440.10 [2] [c]; *People v Brown,*13 NY2d 201, 206, *mot to amend remittitur granted*13 NY2d 1124, *cert denied*376 US 972; *People v Shapiro,*3 NY2d 203, 206). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.— CPL 440.10 motion to vacate.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Den-man, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Side Inflow                    
csv

      Side Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Unregulated Inflow                    
csv

      Unregulated Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Power Release                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Power Release Volume                    
csv

      Spillway Release                    
csv

      Bypass Release                    
csv

      Bypass Release Volume                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Side Inflow                    
json

      Side Inflow Volume                    
json

      Unregulated Inflow                    
json

      Unregulated Inflow Volume                    
json

      Power Release                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Power Release Volume                    
json

      Spillway Release                    
json

      Bypass Release                    
json

      Bypass Release Volume                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         42,251,508
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         23,744,037
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               43,563,817
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    970,868,822
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         28,686,877
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           28,708,784
<LOANS>                                        1,563,006,802
<ALLOWANCE>                                    8,970,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,911,992,836
<DEPOSITS>                                     1,330,506,368
<SHORT-TERM>                                   1,272,891,235
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            39,059,956
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    75,000,000
<COMMON>                                       41,040,439
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,494,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 269,535,277
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                117,304,300
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              35,593,191
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               10,243,856
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               163,141,347
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             53,643,104
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             106,563,573
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          56,577,774
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  4,525,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (981,101)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                69,289,842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                53,574,199
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     53,574,199
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   41,334,992
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 7.50
<LOANS-NON>                                    59,013,827
<LOANS-PAST>                                   337,341
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                61,160,068
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               8,055,432
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  4,439,807
<RECOVERIES>                                   829,980
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              8,970,605
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           8,970,605
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0



</TABLE>
# L_2009109EN.01004101.xml

| 30.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 109/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 109/41

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 27 April 2009

establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the Community within the Food Aid Committee as regards the extension of the Food Aid Convention 1999

(2009/353/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 181, in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Food Aid Convention 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Convention’) was concluded on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2000/421/EC (1) and extended by decisions of the Food Aid Committee in June 2003, June 2005, June 2007 and June 2008 so as to remain in force until 30 June 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Food Aid Convention 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Convention’) was concluded on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2000/421/EC (1) and extended by decisions of the Food Aid Committee in June 2003, June 2005, June 2007 and June 2008 so as to remain in force until 30 June 2009.

| (2) | A further extension for a period of one year of the Convention is in the interest of both the Community and its Member States. Pursuant to Article XXV(b) of the Convention, that extension is conditional upon the remaining in force, for the same period, of the Grains Trade Convention 1995 (2). The Grains Trade Convention 1995 remains in force until 30 June 2009, and a further extension of it will be decided at the International Grains Council meeting in June 2009. The Commission, which represents the Community in the Food Aid Committee, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A further extension for a period of one year of the Convention is in the interest of both the Community and its Member States. Pursuant to Article XXV(b) of the Convention, that extension is conditional upon the remaining in force, for the same period, of the Grains Trade Convention 1995 (2). The Grains Trade Convention 1995 remains in force until 30 June 2009, and a further extension of it will be decided at the International Grains Council meeting in June 2009. The Commission, which represents the Community in the Food Aid Committee, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Community’s position within the Food Aid Committee shall be to vote in favour of the extension of the Food Aid Convention 1999 for a period of one year, subject to the condition that the Grains Trade Convention 1995 remains in force during the same period, i.e. until 30 June 2010.

The Commission is hereby authorised to express this position within the Food Aid Committee.

Done at Luxembourg, 27 April 2009.

For the Council

The President

A. VONDRA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 163, 4.7.2000, p. 37.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 21, 27.1.1996, p. 49.

2

---
USGS 11502500 - WILLIAMSON RIVER BLW SPRAGUE RIVER NR CHILOQUIN, ORLatitude: 42.564Longitude: -121.88Elevation: 4148.50

USGS 11502500 - WILLIAMSON RIVER BLW SPRAGUE RIVER NR CHILOQUIN, OR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crazyman Flat Site Page...



Crazyman Flat

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Swan Lake Mtn Site Page...



Swan Lake Mtn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sun Pass Site Page...



Sun Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chemult Alternate Site Page...



Chemult Alternate

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quartz Mountain Site Page...



Quartz Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summer Rim Site Page...



Summer Rim

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taylor Butte Site Page...



Taylor Butte
# C_2009079EN.01000301.xml

| 2.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5394 — Mauser Holding International/Reyde/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 79/02

On 21 January 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32009M5394. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5394. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
(8 Misc. Rep. 317.)

#### WILLIAMS v. DODGE.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894.)

Attorney and Client—Action for Services Rendered in Another State. In an action for 'services rendered by plaintiff as an attorney at law in another state, plaintiff must allege and prove that an action for such services can be maintained under the law of such other state.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Fred H. Williams against Charles C. Dodge to recover for services alleged to have been rendered by plaintiff as an attorney *730at law In the state of Massachusetts. There was a judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

Howard Y. Stillman, for appellant.

J. A. Dennison, for respondent.

THE COURT.

Mr. Stillman, whereabouts are your exceptions to the judge’s charge?

Mr. Stillman. I claim it is not necessary that we should take •exceptions to the judge’s charge.

THE COURT. Of course, it is not absolutely necessary; but if you ■do not rely upon your legal exceptions you must show us that manifest injustice has been done by the jury. We have carefully examined the case, which is very short, and do not find that there is any evidence of injustice having been done to the plaintiff such as would warrant us in setting aside the verdict which the jury rendered. Nor do we think the objection and exception which you took to the evidence, which was admitted, was well taken. It was clearly in rebuttal of testimony which you gave, and it was pertinent to the issue before the jury. There being no exceptions to the charge, concerning which you have argued, and there being no such manifest injustice as would warrant us in setting the verdict aside on that ground,.we think this judgment should be affirmed. It was a question for the jury to determine on the facts, and we think they have made no error in the conclusion at which they arrived. There is a grave question back of all this. You have not shown that by the laws of Massachusetts a lawyer can maintain an action for his services. In the absence of any proof on that subject, the presumption is that the common-law rule prevails, and .counsel fees for services rendered cannot be recovered. There is no proof on that subject. Nor does the complaint contain any allegation that under the laws of Massachusetts a lawyer can recover for his services.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
[Cite as State v. Anderson, 124 Ohio St.3d 513, 2010-Ohio-1109.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. ANDERSON,

APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. 

[Cite as State v. Anderson, 124 Ohio St.3d 513, 2010-Ohio-1109.] 

Discretionary appeal accepted, discretionary cross-appeal not accepted, and 

judgment of the court of appeals reversed in part on the authority of State 

v. Whitfield. 

(No. 2009-1761 — Submitted January 12, 2010 — Decided March 25, 2010.) 

APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 

No. 91209, 183 Ohio App.3d 522, 2009-Ohio-3900. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. 

{¶ 2} The discretionary cross-appeal is not accepted. 

{¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, on the authority 

of State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319, 2010-Ohio-2, 922 N.E.2d 182, to the 

extent that the court of appeals directed the trial court to vacate the finding of 

guilt on one of the allied offenses. 

 MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and

CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 PFEIFER and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent and would not accept the 

discretionary appeal. 

__________________ 

 William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristen 

L. Sobieski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant and cross-appellee. 

 Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Andrew J. King, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellee and cross-appellant. 

______________________
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Pipe Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian W. Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Brian W. Dunham                  
|Brian W. Dunham                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 7, 2008
# L_2009295EN.01000701.xml

| 12.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 295/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 295/7

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1083/2009

of 11 November 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Sobao Pasiego (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Sobao Pasiego’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Sobao Pasiego’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 November 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 75, 31.3.2009, p. 41.

2

---

ANNEX

Foodstuffs listed in Annex I to the Regulation (EC) No 510/2006:

Class 2.4.   Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker's wares

SPAIN

Sobao Pasiego (PGI)

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2117 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2117

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
   the amount of distilled spirits taxes covered over to the Virgin 
                        Islands and Puerto Rico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2015

 Ms. Plaskett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
   the amount of distilled spirits taxes covered over to the Virgin 
                        Islands and Puerto Rico.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON COVER OVER OF DISTILLED SPIRITS 
              TAXES TO VIRGIN ISLANDS AND PUERTO RICO.

    (a) In General.--Section 7652 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking subsection (f) and by redesignating subsections 
(g) and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to distilled spirits brought into the United States after 
December 31, 2015.
                                 <all>
```