alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7661

LARRY DOTSON, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus
LARRY W. JARVIS; JERRY KILGORE; SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA; STEPHEN R. MCCULLOUGH; VIRGINIA COURT OF APPEALS; SHEILA TOLLIVER, Buchanan County Commonwealth's Attorney; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; EDWARD A. MATNEY; THOMAS W. GOODMAN, JR., Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-6-7) Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 9, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Wayne Adkins, Hugh Patrick Cline, Jr., CLINE, ADKINS & CLINE, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Larry Dotson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dotson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Dotson’s motion to transfer an additional supplement to the record because the supplement he seeks, trial exhibit eleven, is part of the existing record. We also deny Dotson’s motion for a pre-hearing conference and his motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are- 4 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Unassociated Document


     

    
      


      Severance Agreement between
China Linen and Shaofeng Qi

      


      


      Party A:
Shaofeng Qi

      


      Party B:
China Linen Textile Industry, Ltd.

      


      


      The
Parties hereto have reached the following agreement in connection with Shaofeng
Qi’s decision on terminating his job responsibilities with Party B:

      


      
        	
                -

              	
                Party
      A will officially terminate his employment relationship with Party B from
      September 1, 2010;

              


      

      


      
        	
                -

              	
                Party
      B agrees to pay Party A the before-tax salary for September
      2010;

              


      

      


      
        	
                -

              	
                Party
      B agrees to issue 30,000 restricted shares to Party A within one month of
      completion of the private
financing;

              


      

      


      
        	
                -

              	
                Party A will act as Party B’s
      advisor to cooperate with the latter to complete the private financing and
      the work relating to future up-listing and public offering.

              


      

      


      


      This
Supplementary Agreement is made in three copies, with each Party holding one,
upon affixation of signatures to, and effectiveness of, the same, and the
Company’s counsel holding the third copy.

      


      


      Party A:
Shaofeng Qi

      


      (signature
Shaofeng Qi)

      


      August 28,
2010

      


      


      


      Party B:
China Linen Textile Industry, Ltd. (CEO & Chairman)

      


      (signature
of Ren Gao)

      


      August 28,
2010
152 So. 257

#### In re J. H. COUNTRYMAN.

6 Div. 224.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 9, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1933.

Rehearing Denied to Bar Commission Dec. 14, 1933.

Oliver D. Street, Sr., of Birmingham, for petitioner.

Jim C. Smith, J. W. Gillon, Jr., W. H. Sadler, Jr., and Frank Bainbridge, all of Birmingham, for appellee.

KNIGHT, Justice.

Affirmed on authority of Ex parte Von L. Thompson, post, p. 113, 152 So. 229.

All the Justices concur.

THOMAS, J., having stated the nature and extent of his dissent in Ex parte Thompson and in Re Fite, ante, p. 4, 152 So. 229, 246, concurs in the foregoing.

On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

Upon further consideration of this cause, the court is of the opinion that a sentence of suspension of the appellant from the practice of the law for eighteen months from October 12, 1933, is an adequate penalty to be imposed in this case. It will be, and is so ordered.

The judgment of the bar commission is, therefore, modified so as to suspend and restrain the appellant from the practice of the law, as above indicated, and for the time stated.

Judgment modified; application for rehearing overruled.

All the Justices concur.

On Application for Rehearing by State Bar Commission.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment in this case is modified in accordance with the opinion of this court in Re Von L. Thompson, post, p. 113, 152 So. 229, rendered on consideration of the application for rehearing by the state bar commission.

All the Justices concur.
#### UNITED STATES v. Sergeant Levern CREDIT, FR [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], United States Air Force.

ACM 21959 (f rev).

U. S. Air Force Court of Military Review.

1 Dec. 1978.

Appellate Counsel for the Accused: Colonel B. Ellis Phillips and Captain Thomas S. Markiewicz, USAFR.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Julius C. Ullerich, Jr., and Captain James R. Van Orsdol.

Before EARLY, HERMAN, ORSER and ARROWOOD, Appellate Military Judges.

DECISION UPON FURTHER REVIEW

PER CURIAM:

This case is presented to us once again, with essentially the same issues decided in our opinion written by Senior Judge Roberts, *United States v. Credit,*2 M.J. 631 (A.F.C.M.R.1976). The United States Court of Military Appeals reversed that decision and returned the record to The Judge Advocate General for remand to obtain proper authentication, a new review and a new action by a convening authority. *United States v. Credit,*4 M.J. 118 (C.M.A.1977).

Appellate defense counsel cite recent cases for additional support of their assignments of error, and call our attention to the comments of trial defense counsel in his response to the post-trial review. *United States v. Goode,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 367, 50 C.M.R. 1, 1 M.J. 3 (1975). The latter were adequately discussed in an addendum to the post-trial review by the staff judge advocate. Four of the errors assigned on appeal were fully treated in our previous opinion and warrant no further discussion.

The first of the two issues for which counsel cite recent authority is that the military judge erroneously denied the defense request for subpoena or deposition of the laboratory analyst. *United States*v. *Trottier,*4 M.J. 916 (A.F.C.M.R.1978) and *United States v. Phillippy,*2 M.J. 297 (A.F.C.M.R.1976). The *Trottier*case is not supportive of the defense position; in *Phillippy,*this court held that the witness in that case was called for a material purpose. For the reasons stated in our earlier decision in this case, we reiterate that the testimony proposed to be elicited from the laboratory *720analyst was not material to the issues presented. *United States v. Credit,*supra at pages 647-48.

Finally, we have considered the recent cases of the United States Court of Military Appeals which appellate defense counsel assert “eclipse” our earlier decision regarding reputation witnesses, to wit, *United States v. Williams,*3 M.J. 239 (C.M.A.1977); *United States v. Jouan,*3 M.J. 136 (C.M.A.1977), and *United States v. Willis,*3 M.J. 94 (C.M.A.1977). We find nothing in those decisions which alters the lack of materiality of the proposed testimony of these requested witnesses. Once again, Senior Judge Roberts’ opinion clearly sets forth the rationale underlying our decision that evidence of the accused’s former peaceable and non-violent reputation would be of no factual significance with respect to his guilt. *United States v. Credit,*supra at page 649.

For the foregoing reasons, the findings of guilty and the sentence are correct in law and fact and are

AFFIRMED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00103-CR

Jose Reyes Romero Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-06-31574-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 18, 2021
##### 



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 Annual Report of Baylake Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as amended and filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas L. Herlache, 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 to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Thomas L. HerlacheThomas L. HerlachePresident and Chief Executive Officer
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Baylake Corp. and will be retained by Baylake Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. 9
**Exhibit
      23**




**Schwartz
      Levitsky Feldman llp**


CHARTERED
      ACCOUNTANTS


LICENSED
        PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




**CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




The
      undersigned, Schwartz Levitsky Feldman llp, hereby consents to the use of our
      name and the use of our opinion dated February 2, 2007 on the consolidated
      financial statements of China Automotive Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) included
      in its Annual Report on Form 10-K being filed by the Company, for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2006.




Toronto,
                Ontario, Canada
            /s/
                Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLPApril
                2, 2007
            Chartered
                Accountants
              Licensed
                  Public Accountants





1167
                Caledonia RoadToronto,
                Ontario M6A 2X1Tel:
                416 785 5353Fax:
                416 785 5663
# Effectie 07.19.23
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: May 2, 2011
    /s/ Gail F. GoodmanGail F. GoodmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer 37
**Exhibit 6.1**
**Computation of Pro Forma Earnings Per Share**               **For the Year Ended December 31,**  **2001** **2002** **2003**  **(in thousands, except share and per share data)**Net income $498,983  $274,140  $181,119              Weighted average ordinary shares outstanding  166,666,755   164,893,283   160,382,120 Ordinary share equivalents:            Dilutive effect of share optionsoutstanding  *   —   —              Weighted average ordinary sharesoutstanding  166,666,755   164,893,283   160,382,120              Basic and diluted net income per ordinary share $2.99  $1.66  $1.13              
     *The dilutive effect of share options outstanding during the year ended December 31, 2001 was not material.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6821

JOHN ALLEN ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

K. V. BONNER; MS. HOWELL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-99-630)

Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 11, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Allen Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Allen Alexander, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

1999) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Alexander v.

Bonner, No. CA-99-630 (E.D. Va. June 3, 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 1

SPIKES Market Maker Program

Program Purpose

The purpose of the SPIKES Market Maker Program (the “Program”) is to incentivize participants to support 

the continued development of the products listed below. The resulting additional central limit order book 

liquidity benefits all participants in the market.

Product Scope

SPIKES Volatility Index Futures that are traded on MGEX via the CME Globex® trading platform 

(“Product”). The Program consists of four Sections for participants.

Eligible Participants

With the exception of one subset, there is no limit to the number of participants in the Program. There are

no member requirements for participants.

For Section 1, the Exchange may designate one or more participants who agree to make two-sided markets 

in the Product throughout the Regular Trading Session (“RTS”) and, as specified, one or more Extended 

Trading Sessions (“ETS”). In determining whether or not to select a prospective participant for the 

Program, the Exchange may take into account a variety of factors, including: whether the prospective 

participant is willing to quote throughout RTS and, where specified, ETS; the strength of the quoting 

obligations the prospective participant is willing to commit to provide; whether the Exchange believes that 

the prospective participant can maintain such obligations based on the application; and historical trading 

volume in related products. The Exchange may, from time to time, add or subtract from the aforementioned 

requirements as it deems necessary. Failure to meet quoting requirements, among other things, may 

result in removal from the Program. Participants must complete an application with the Exchange to be 

eligible for Section 1 of the Program. An application can be received by contacting MGEX at 

mgex@mgex.com.

For Sections 2, 3, and 4, there are no application requirements. 

Program Term

Start date is October 1, 2021. End date is June 30, 2023July 31, 2023.

Hours

RTS and/or ETS.

Obligations

In order to be eligible to receive the incentives, participants must quote two-sided markets in the Product 

at predetermined average bid/ask spreads meeting certain volume thresholds at specified time-in-market 

requirements.

Incentives

Upon meeting all obligations, as determined by the Exchange, participants will be eligible to receive 

predetermined incentives.

Monitoring and Termination of Status
The Exchange will monitor trading activity and participants’ performance and retain the right to revoke 

participant status if it concludes from review that a participant no longer meets the eligibility requirements, 

fails to meet the obligations of the Program, or fails to comply with Exchange rules (including, but not limited 

to, rules relating to market manipulation, wash trades, etc.) or any applicable law.
# C_2019155EN.01001501.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/15

---

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy — France) — Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer

(Case C-372/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 3 - Matters covered - Levies on income from assets charged to a French resident insured under the Swiss social security scheme - Levies apportioned for the funding of two benefits administered by the French National Solidarity Fund for Independent Living - Direct and sufficiently relevant link with certain branches of social security - Definition of ‘social security benefit’ - Individual assessment of an applicant’s personal needs - Taking into account the applicant’s resources in calculating the amount of the benefits)

(2019/C 155/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Respondents: Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that benefits, such as the personal independence allowance and the disability compensation allowance, must, for the purposes of their classification as ‘social security contributions’ within the meaning of that provision, be regarded as granted without any individual assessment of a recipient’s personal needs, since the recipient’s resources are taken into account for the sole purpose of calculating the actual amount of those benefits on the basis of legally defined, objective criteria.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---
##### 



Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Approach Resources Inc.
(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 APPROACH RESOURCES INC.By:
    /s/ STEVEN P. SMARTSteven P. Smart,Chief Financial Officer
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2134 

To reauthorize the Helen Keller National Center for Youths and Adults 

Who Are Deaf-Blind. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2019 

Mr. POCAN (for himself, Mr. SUOZZI, and Mr. COLE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Helen Keller National Center for Youths 

and Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Helen Keller National 

5 Center Reauthorization Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HELEN KELLER NATIONAL CENTER REAUTHOR7 IZED. 

8 (a) GENERAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA9 TIONS.—The first sentence of section 205(a) of the Helen 

10 Keller National Center Act (29 U.S.C. 1904(a)) is amendVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Apr 12, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2134.IH H2134

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2134 IH

1 ed by striking ‘‘1999 through 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2019 

2 through 2023’’. 

3 (b) HELEN KELLER NATIONAL CENTER FEDERAL

4 ENDOWMENT FUND.—The first sentence of section 

5 208(h) of the Helen Keller National Center Act (29 

6 U.S.C. 1907(h)) is amended by striking ‘‘1999 through 

7 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2019 through 2023’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS