alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In re J.J.

No. 15A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 12, 2007.

Jil Sanchez, for Gaston County DSS.

Laura Crawford, Waco, TX, for Perry Bobbin.

Ed Bogle, Gastonia, for Guardian Ad Litem.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of July 2007 by Respondent for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Respondent (Mother) shall have up to and including the 23rd day of July 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 12th day of July 2007."

HUDSON, J., recused.
EXHIBIT  15.1





ClubCorp, Inc.
Dallas, Texas

Ladies and  Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration Statements Nos. 33-89818, 33-96568, 333-08041 and 333-57107

With  respect  to  the  subject  registration  statements,  we  acknowledge  our
awareness  of  the use therein of our report dated July 21, 2000, related to our
review  of  interim  financial  information.

Pursuant  to  Rule  436(c)  under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered  part  of  a  registration  statement  prepared  or  certified  by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of  sections  7  and  11  of  the  Act.


                                                  KPMG  LLP


Dallas,  Texas
July  21,  2000
STATE v. STATON.

No. COA06-1009.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 17, 2007.

Certification Date August 6, 2007.

Appeal from Forsyth (02CRS58925).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2903

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Bradley Dean Craig, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 5, 2007 Filed: October 18, 2007

___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Bradley Dean Craig appeals the 87-month prison sentences the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to recei ving and possessing child pornography. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (a)(5)(B). For reversal, Craig argues that the district court erred in denying his request for a downward variance based on his history of extensive community service.-2- We conclude that Craig’s sent ences are not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (discussing appella te review). The district court imposed these sentences--which were at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range--after properly considering all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including Craig’s history and circumstances. SeeRita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2463- 68 (2007) (approving appellate presumption of reasonableness for sentence within advisory Guidelines range ); United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing appropriate consideration of § 3553(a) factors). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Timothy G.McGrath, VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of Orphan Medical, Inc., certifythat:

 

1.             I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form10-Q of Orphan Medical, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)             Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)             Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)             All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)            Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | November 9, 2004 | /s/ Timothy G. McGrath  |   |
|--------|------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |             | Vice President and      |   |
|   |             | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

1

----
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 142/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 142/2013 of 19 February 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 as regards the            data relating to the body issuing certificates in New Zealand for the export of milk products         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 142/2013                     

# of 19 February 2013

# amending Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 as regards the data relating to the body issuing certificates in New Zealand for the                        export of milk products                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1), and in particular Article 144(1) and Article 148(c), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC)                              No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas(2) lists in its Annex XII bodies responsible for issuing inward-monitoring arrangement (IMA 1) certificates.

(2)New Zealand has communicated to the Commission a change, as from 1 March 2013, of the name and the location of the issuing                              body listed in that Annex. In view of that it is necessary to update the data relating to the issuing body in New Zealand                              listed in Annex XII to that Regulation.

(3)Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common                              Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex XII to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

It shall apply to the IMA 1 certificates issued from 1 March 2013.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 February 2013.

*For the Commission*                            

*The President*                            

José Manuel Barroso                            

## ANNEXU.K.

In Annex XII to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, the entry for New Zealand is replaced by the following:

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29.
STATE of North Carolina v. William Earl FULLER.

No. 451A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Daniel Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for William Earl Fuller.

Diane Miller, Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney Generals, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 632 S.E.2d 509.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 23rd day of August 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Pumatech, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending July 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Keith Kitchen, Chief Accounting Officer 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, that:



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



| | b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 28, 2003



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ J. KEITH KITCHEN                                                     
|J. Keith Kitchen                                                         
|Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Accounting Officer





|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by Pumatech, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5652 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5652

   To direct the United States Sentencing Commission to make certain 
   changes in the Sentencing Guidelines as they affect certain human 
                         trafficking offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2008

  Mr. Pearce introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the United States Sentencing Commission to make certain 
   changes in the Sentencing Guidelines as they affect certain human 
                         trafficking offenses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Sexual Slavery Prevention Act 
of 2008''.

SEC. 2. DIRECTION TO SENTENCING COMMISSION.

    The United States Sentencing Commission shall, pursuant to its 
authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, amend the 
Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements so as to achieve 
the following:
            (1) In section 2H4.1--
                    (A) so as to increase the base levels in each of 
                subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) by 4 levels;
                    (B) so as to add a special offense characteristic 
                based on the age of the victim if that age is under 18 
                years, and increase the base levels by 6 for that 
                characteristic; and
                    (C) so as to add a special offense characteristic 
                increasing the penalties by 4 levels if the intent of 
                the defendant was to enslave the victim for the purpose 
                of sexual acts.
            (2) In section 2L1.1--
                    (A) so as to increase the base level in subsection 
                (a)(3) by 8 levels;
                    (B) so as to add a special offense characteristic 
                based on the age of the victim if that age is under 18 
                years, and increase the base levels by 6 for that 
                characteristic; and
                    (C) so as to add a special offense characteristic 
                increasing the penalties by 6 levels if the intent of 
                the defendant was to enslave the victim for the purpose 
                of sexual acts.
            (3) In section 2G1.3, so as to increase all the base levels 
        in subsection (a) by 3 levels.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6680

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT GLENN FORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:10-cr-00083-AWA-FBS-1; 2:13-cv-00534-AWA)

Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016 

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Mallory Kent, LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MALLORY KENT, 

Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant. Melissa Elaine O’Boyle, 

Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Glenn Ford seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Ford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 730/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 730/2013 of 29 July 2013 on certain detailed implementing rules concerning the            keeping of accounts for the purpose of determining the incomes of agricultural holdings (codification) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 730/2013                     

# of 29 July 2013

# on certain detailed implementing rules concerning the keeping of accounts for the purpose of determining the incomes of agricultural                        holdings                     

# (codification) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/220 of 3 February 2015 laying down rules for the application of Council Regulation                                 (EC) No 1217/2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural                                 holdings in the European Union.
1 5 1 7 WE S T F R O N T S T R E E T S U I T E 3 5 4 TYL E R , TX 7 5 7 0 2 T E L : 9 0 3 - 5 9 3 - 8 4 7 1 FA X : 9 0 3 - 5 9 3 - 2 1 9 3 Serving Anderson, Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Smith , Trinity, Upshur, Van Zandt and Wood Counties www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us C HIEF J USTICE J AMES T. W ORTHEN J USTICES B RIAN H OYLE G REG N EELEY 

# T W E L F T H 

# C O U R T O F 

# A P P EA L S C LERK C ATHY S. L USK C HIEF S TAFF A TTORNEY M ARGARET H USSEY 

## April 7, 2015 Ms. Lois Rogers District Clerk, Smith County Courthouse, Suite 204 100 North Broadway Avenue Tyler, TX 75702-7201 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * RE: Case Number: 12-13-00345-CR, 12-13-00346-CR Trial Court Case Number: 241-0592-13, 241-0593-13 Style: LaQuentin Washington v. The State of Texas Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed herewith is the Mandate issued in the above causes. When the District or County Clerk has executed the Mandate in accordance with the opinion of this Court, the Clerk is requested to fill in the information below and to return the attached copy to this office. Very truly yours, CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK By:_____________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk CC: Mr. Clement Dunn (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Michael J. West (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mandate executed on __ 8TH _ day of ____APRIL___________, 2015. Brief explanation of action taken: ___ SCANNED ___________________________________

_____________________LINDA RHYMES _________________________District/County Clerk FILE COPY
SPENCE v. HUNTER AUTO AND WRECKER SERVICE, INC.

No. COA06-88

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CVD4457).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
IN RE C.J.F.

No. COA06-1294.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 17, 2007.

Certification Date August 6, 2007.

Appeal from Wake (05JB413).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00222

- CR

DEMETRIUS RASHAD GRE ER , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017

- 874

- C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Demetrius Greer attempts to appeal his conviction for assault family violence. The

certificate of right to appeal indicates that this is a plea bargain case and that Greer

waived his right to appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d). Accordingly, the appeal is d ismissed.

Notwithstanding that we are dismissing this appeal, Greer may file a motion for

rehearing with this Court within 15 days after this opinion and judgment are rendered if

he believes this opinion and judgment are erroneously based on inaccurate in formationG reer v. State Page 2

or documents. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 49.1. Moreover, if Greer desires to have the opinion

and judgment of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that

petition must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 day s after either the

day this Court’s judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing is

overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2 (a).

For the reasons stated, this appeal is dismissed.

AL SCOGGINS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed July 18, 2018 Do not publish [CR25]