alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DEMPSEY v. SILVER CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASS'N, INC.

No. COA06-699.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 7, 2007.

Certification Date August 27, 2007.

Appeal from Orange (05CVS113).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6909
BERNARDO FIGUEROA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT GRANT, Sussex I State Prison; G. COOK, Sussex I State Prison, Defendants - Appellees, and GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Fri edman, District Judge. (CA-03-609) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernardo Figueroa, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Bernardo Figueroa appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Figueroa v. Grant , No. CA-03-609 (E.D. Va. May 14, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 24(b)

                                SOLUTIA INC.

                                CERTIFICATE

          I, Rosemary L. Klein, Senior Vice President, Secretary and
General Counsel of Solutia Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
following is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the
Board of Directors of the Company on March 8, 2005, at which meeting a
quorum was present and acting throughout:

              FURTHER RESOLVED, that each officer and director who may be
              required to sign and execute the 2004 Annual Report on Form
              10-K or any document in connection therewith (whether for and
              on behalf of the Company, or as an officer or director of the
              Company, or otherwise), be and hereby is authorized to execute
              a power of attorney appointing Rosemary L. Klein and Miriam R.
              Singer, or either of them acting alone, his or her true and
              lawful attorney or attorneys to sign in his or her name, place
              and stead in any such capacity such Annual Report on Form 10-K
              and any and all amendments thereto and documents in connection
              therewith, and to file the same with the Commission or any
              other governmental body, each of said attorneys to have power
              to act with or without the others, and to have full power and
              authority to do and perform, in the name and on behalf of each
              of said officers and directors, every act whatsoever which
              such attorneys, or any one of them, may deem necessary,
              appropriate or desirable to be done in connection therewith as
              fully and to all intents and purposes as such officers or
              directors might or could do in person.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand in my official
capacity and affixed the corporate seal of the Company this 9th day of
March, 2005.

                                       /s/ Rosemary L. Klein
                                       ---------------------
                                       Rosemary L. Klein
                                       Senior Vice President, General
                                       Counsel and Secretary

SEAL
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 Smith Barney Potomac Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, 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 Partnership.

|                                                                     |  |  |        |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--------|
| /s/ Jerry Pascucci                                                  |  |  |   |
| Jerry Pascucci Citigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director |  |  |   |
| March 30, 2007                                                      |  |  |   |
| Date                                                                |  |  |   |
|                                                                     |

----
MULTIPLE CLAIMANTS v. NCDHHS.

No. 183A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 16, 2006.

Robert G. Hargett, Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, for NCDHHS.

Benjamin E. Baker, Jr., Montgomery, AL, Bruce A. Elmore, Jr., Asheville, C. Gary Triggs, Robert K. Denton, Lawrence D. McMahon, Jr., Morganton, William Hixson, Henry E. Teich, Scott M. Anderson, Greenville, SC, for Multiple Claimants.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of October 2006 by Defendant for Leave to File Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of October 2006."
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30098

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KEVIN HONEYCUTT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:18-CV-1346

USDC No. 3:15-CR-58-2

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin Honeycutt, federal prisoner # 17578-035, moves for a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 

challenging his sentences for conspiring to distribute and to possess with 

intent to distribute a controlled substance, possessing with intent to distribute 

a controlled substance, and being a convicted felon in possession of firearms. 

In his § 2255 motion, Honeycutt claimed that his trial counsel rendered 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30098 Document: 00515381460 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2020
No. 19-30098

2

ineffective assistance during the plea negotiation stage and relative to his 

decision to plead guilty or proceed to trial. He also requested an evidentiary 

hearing.

To obtain a COA, a movant must make “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where a district court 

has denied claims on the merits, a movant must show “that jurists of reason 

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 

(2003). Honeycutt has not met this standard with respect to his ineffective 

assistance claim and has therefore not shown an entitlement to a COA.

We construe his motion for a COA with respect to the district court’s 

denial of an evidentiary hearing as a direct appeal of that issue, see Norman v. 

Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016), and affirm. Honeycutt’s motion 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal is denied.

COA DENIED; AFFIRMED; IFP DENIED.

 Case: 19-30098 Document: 00515381460 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2020
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 901/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 901/2013 of 19 September 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 901/2013                     

# of 19 September 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

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),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of 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, 19 September 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
*

 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20931

SOUTHWEST MOBILE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

versus

STEWART & STEVENSON SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-92-386)

July 12, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This matter is before the court on the appeal by Stewart & Stevenson

Services, Inc., of an adverse jury verdict and the court’s award of attorneys’ fees,

and also the court's denial of their motion for attorneys' fees. Having considered

the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent parts of the records, and
2

finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EAST TEXAS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., AT
DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         511,931
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       5,105,605
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,554,364
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      51,422,354
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        51,936,897
<LOANS>                                     50,557,122
<ALLOWANCE>                                    267,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             113,435,027
<DEPOSITS>                                  91,859,053
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            487,000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,564
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,076,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             113,435,027
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                988,165
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              992,353
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,980,518
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,109,672
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          870,846
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                649,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                293,695
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     183,230
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   183,230
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.16
<LOANS-NON>                                    406,050
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                523,681
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               289,120
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   21,864
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              267,256
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           112,280
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        154,976
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. BOBBITT.

No. COA07-270.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 20, 2007.

Certification Date December 10, 2007.

Appeal from Wake (04CRS102544).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Diane GEITNER, Individually and derivatively on behalf of Southern Hosiery Mills, Incorporated, and Jacques Geitner, Individually and derivatively on behalf of Southern Hosiery Mills, Incorporated v. Martha MULLINS, Virginia Shehan, Peter Menzies, Martha Mullins as Administratrix of the Estate of Phillip A. Mullins, III, and Southern Hosiery Mills, Incorporated.

No. 239P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Robert King, III, Greensboro, for Diane & Jacques Geitner.

Richard A. Vinroot, Charlotte, for Southern Hosiery.

L. Bruce McDaniel, Raleigh, for Martha Mullins, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 643 S.E.2d 435.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of May 2007 by Plaintiffs (Diane & Jacques Geitner) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."
# Council Decision 2014/214/CFSPShow full title

Council Decision 2014/214/CFSP of 14 April 2014 amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision 2014/214/CFSP                     

# of 14 April 2014

# amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)On 22 April 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/184/CFSP(1).

(2)On the basis of a review of Decision 2013/184/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 30 April 2015.

(3)Decision 2013/184/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Decision 2013/184/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

Article 3 is replaced by the following:

# ‘Article 3

This Decision shall apply until 30 April 2015. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as                        appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union.*                   

Done at Luxembourg, 14 April 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

C. Ashton                            

1

Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP of 22 April 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma and repealing Decision 2010/232/CFSP                              (OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75).
CAPPS v. NW SIGN INDUSTRIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

No. COA06-1297.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 21, 2007.

Certification Date September 10, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (03CVS10822).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                                  THE COMPANY

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                            (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         YEAR ENDED
                                                                        DECEMBER 31,
                                                              ------------------------------
                                                                  1996              1997
                                                              ------------      ------------
<S>                                                           <C>               <C>
Pre-tax loss from continuing operations.....................   $(48,488)         $(74,757)
                                                               --------          --------
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense and amortization of debt discount and
     premium on all indebtedness............................     37,742            78,185
Rentals:
  Rent expense(1)...........................................        719             1,521
  Preferred dividend requirement............................        496               882
                                                               --------          --------
          Total fixed charges...............................     38,957            80,588
                                                               --------          --------
Earnings before income taxes and fixed charges..............   $ (9,531)         $  5,831
                                                               ========          ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(2).......................         --                --
                                                               ========          ========
</TABLE>

---------------

(1) For leases where the interest factor can be specifically identified, the
    actual interest factor was used. For all other leases, the interest factor
    is estimated at one-third of total rent expense for the applicable period
    which management believes represents a reasonable approximation of the
    interest factor.

(2) The Company's earnings for the years ended December 31, 1996 and 1997 were
    inadequate to cover fixed charges by $48,488 and $74,757, respectively.
STATE v. FORNEY.

No. COA07-330.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 20, 2007.

Certification Date December 10, 2007.

Appeal from Guilford (05CRS85656, 05CRS85659).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.