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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7171

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

ANDREW LEWIS PRIVOTT, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:02-cr-00090-JBF-FBS-1) 

Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Andrew Lewis Privott, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Andrew Privott seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). The Government has moved to 

dismiss the appeal as untimely. We grant the Government’s 

motion and dismiss Privott’s appeal. 

In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice 

of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 

310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that a § 3582 proceeding is 

criminal in nature and that ten-day appeal period applies). 

With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or 

good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to 

thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

1985). “When the government properly objects to the 

untimeliness of a defendant’s criminal appeal, Rule 4(b) is 

mandatory and inflexible.” See United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 

229, 234 (2d Cir.) (citations omitted), cert denied, -- S. Ct. -

-, 2008 WL 2958966 (Oct. 6, 2008) (No. 08-5572). 

The district court entered its order denying the 

motion for reduction of sentence on March 28, 2008. The notice 

of appeal was deemed filed on May 23, 2008. See Houston v. 

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Because Privott failed to file 

2 
3 

a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the 

appeal period, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the 

appeal. 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
# C_2018123EN.01001301.xml

| 9.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/13

---

Action brought on 14 February 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-122/18)

(2018/C 123/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by having failed and by continuing to fail to ensure that the public authorities avoid exceeding the time limits of 30 or 60 calendar days for paying their trade debts, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1) and, in particular, its obligations as set out in Article 4 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by having failed and by continuing to fail to ensure that the public authorities avoid exceeding the time limits of 30 or 60 calendar days for paying their trade debts, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1) and, in particular, its obligations as set out in Article 4 of that directive;

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The evidence before the Commission, which is based on the information provided by the Italian Republic during the pre-litigation procedure, indicates that the payment periods of 30 and 60 days set out in Article 4 of Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment have been exceeded, not by individual entities but by entire categories of public authorities, not in relation to one individual commercial transaction but in terms of the average time taken to pay, that is, in respect of all the transactions concluded by those authorities, and, lastly, not over a limited period but consistently, from September 2014 until the date on which the present action was brought. The Commission therefore considers that sustained and systematic infringement of Article 4 of that directive has been established.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6426

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY ANTONIO SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-97-129, CA-01-3599-6-13)

Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 7, 2002

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Antonio Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Antonio Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Smith, Nos. CR-97-129; CA-01-

3599-6-13 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 30, 2002 & entered Jan. 31, 2002). 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
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-60851

Summary Calendar

__________________

MAJAED BATARSEH,

 Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A29 608 501

(A29-608-501)

- - - - - - - - - - -

November 18, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Majaed Batarseh petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the

immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum

and withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the record, the

briefs, and the applicable law and determine that the Board was

qualified to apply the correct standard of law to the facts of

the case upon a determination that the Immigration Judge had 
No. 97-60851

-2-

imposed an incorrect burden of proof. The Board has de novo

review authority to make factual findings on appeal. CastilloRodriguez v. INS, 929 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1991). This also

applies to the application of facts to the correct standard of

law. We also determine that the Board did not abuse its

discretion in denying petitioner’s application for asylum because

the Board found that he did not meet the standards to qualify for

asylum. The petition for review is DENIED.
Exhibit 23

                         Consents of Experts and Counsel

<PAGE>

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of Allied First Bancorp, Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-87836)
of our report dated July 30, 2003 on the consolidated financial statements of
Allied First Bancorp, Inc., which report is included in the 2003 Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB of Allied First Bancorp, Inc.


                                        /s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Crowe Chizek and Company LLC

Oak Brook, Illinois
September 25, 2003
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
 
 The
undersigned officers of Vinyl Products, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that, to their knowledge:
 
 1. the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A
of Vinyl Products, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, 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 Vinyl Products,
Inc.
 
 
 Date:
      November 23, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Gordon KnottName:  Gordon
      KnottTitle:    Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:
      November 23, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Douglas E. WellsName:  Douglas
      E. WellsTitle:    Chief
      Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Accounting Officer
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not
to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council, May 24, 2001, 10:30 am to May 25, 2001, 12 pm, 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Conference Room E                    1/2                    , Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 2, 2001, 66 FR 21994.                

The Training Sub. & Neuroinformatics, Computational Neurosci. & Infrastracture Sub. is changed to an open session; the time remains the same. The Clinical Trials Sub. will be open from 8:30 am to 9 am and closed from 9 am to 10 am. The meeting is partially Closed to the public.

Dated: May 17, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-13107  Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### MICHAEL S. MARSHALL v. LISA D. SIZEMORE

No. 570A97

(Filed 9 October 1998)

Appeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 127 N.C. App. 751, 493 S.E.2d 89 (1997), affirming orders dated 30 December 1994, 9 January 1996, and 13 June 1996, by Evans, J., in District Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 29 September 1998.

*Baucom, Claytor, Benton, Morgan & Wood, P.A., by Richard F. Kronk, for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Richard F. Harris, III, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice Wynn did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
J

- S 04024

- 14

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. JERMAINE SHOCKLEY, Appellant No. 1042 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order March 5 , 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 23

- CR

- 0008078

- 2007

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD, J. * CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.: FILED DECEMBER 17, 2014 I concur in the result reached by the Majority under the particular facts of this case. I write separately to distance myself from the Majority’s suggestion that Commonwealth v. Cunningham , 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013), finally decided the issue of retroactive application of the new constitutional rule announced in Miller v. Alabama , 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). See Majority Decision at 8. Notably, the Cunningham Court did not decide whether Miller’s holding qualifies as a watershed rule of criminal procedure,
sati sfying the second exception to the general rule of non

- retroactivity delineated in Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (plurality). See Cunningham , 81 A.3d at 10 (declining to assess the second Teague

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S04024

- 14

- 2

-

exception because the appellant did “not develop[ ] his argument in such terms”). Additionally, both the Cunningham Majority, as well as Justice Castille in his concurring opinion, acknowledged that the Court did not address whether there is a basis under Pennsylvania constitutional law to afford a broad er retroactive application to Miller

. See Cunningham , 81 A.3d at 9, 13, 17

- 18 (Castille, J., concurring). Indeed, our Court has recognized that retroactivity arguments premised upon state law

– raised in a timely PCRA petition

- are not foreclosed by Cun ningham and could be considered by this Court. See Commonwealth v. Seskey , 86 A.3d 237, 243 (Pa. Super. 2014) (noting that while the appellant’s attempts to
circumvent Cunningham based upon Pennsylvania state constitutional law “someday may require consid eration by our courts,” we did not have jurisdiction to examine those claims because they were raised in an untimely PCRA petition). In this case, Appellant did not raise any of the above

- mentioned arguments in his PCRA petition and, therefore, they are not preserved for our review herein. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). However, if at some point Miller is held to apply retroactively by either our Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, Appellant may seek relief by filing another PCRA petition within 60 days of the date on which such decision is filed. Justice Fitzgerald joins this Concurring Memorandum.
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.18 OF THE POOLING AND SERVICING
                      AGREEMENT DATED AS OF AUGUST 28, 2001

                    BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
                       MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
                                  SERIES 2001-E


I, Robert S. O'Neill, Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A., Servicer
in connection with Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2001-E, do hereby
certify that (i) a review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of its performance under the Agreement, has been made under my
supervision, (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
Servicer has fulfilled in all material aspects its obligations under the
Agreement throughout such year.

Certified on this 4th day of March 2003.

                                       BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


                                       By:
                                          ------------------------------
                                            Name:  Robert S. O'Neill
                                            Title: Senior Vice President


Inv D20
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND

FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Form 10-K of Millennium Bankshares Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31,
2006, I, Dale G. Phelps, Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(a) such Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

(b) the information contained in such Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of Millennium Bankshares Corporation and its subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in such Form 10-K.



|                     |  |  |  |                                          
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: April 12, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Dale G. Phelps                       
|                     |  |  |  | Dale G. Phelps                           
|                     |  |  |  | Principal Executive and Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 19, 2019

NO. 03-19-00439-CV

Nations Best LLC, Appellant

v.

Dorothy Jones and Glenn Daniels, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on June 27, 2019. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted its appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and 

in the court below.
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant North American Subsidiaries
MTS Testing Systems (Canada) Ltd. International Subsidiaries
MTS Holdings France, SARL
MTS Sensor Technologie und Verwaltungs-GmbH
MTS Automotive Sensors GmbH
MTS Sensor Technologie GmbH and Co. KG
MTS Systems SAS
MTS Systems GmbH
MTS Systems Beteiligungs-GmbH
MTS Systems Ltd.
MTS Systems Norden AB
MTS Systems srl
MTS (Japan) Ltd.
MTS Korea, Inc.
MTS Sensors Technology K.K.
MTS Systems (China) Inc.
MTS Systems (Hong Kong) Inc.


---
---

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



FORM 8-K



CURRENT REPORT



Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report: March 5, 2008

(Date of earliest event reported)



LENOX GROUP INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Commission File Number: 1-11908





Delaware
        13-3684956(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
        (IRS Employer Identification No.)




One Village Place, 6436 City West Parkway, Eden Prairie, MN 55344

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)



(952) 944-5600

(Registrants telephone number, including area code)



Not Applicable

(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)



Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)



oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))



---

---

Item 2.02
        Results of Operations and Financial Condition.




Lenox Group Inc. (the Company) issued a news release, dated March 5, 2008, entitled Lenox Group Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter And Full Year 2007 Results, a copy of which is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K.



The information set forth under Item 2.02 in this Current Report on Form 8-K, including Exhibit 99.1 hereto, shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section. The information set forth under Item 2.02 in this Current Report on Form 8-K, including Exhibit 99.1 hereto, shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.





Item 9.01
        Financial Statements and Exhibits.




(d)
        Exhibits




99.1
        Press Release dated March 5, 2008, entitled Lenox Group Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter And Full Year 2007 Results.




2

---

SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



LENOX GROUP INC./s/ Fred SpivakFred SpivakChief Operating and Financial OfficerDated: March 6, 2008






3

---

EXHIBIT INDEX



Exhibit No.
        
        Description99.1
        
        Press Release, dated March 5, 2008, entitled Lenox Group Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter And Full Year 2007 Results.






4

---