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

- S33016

- 19

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

v.

JAMES LEE STANLEY

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 91 MDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 13, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 06

- CR

- 0001321

- 2005,

CP

- 06

- CR

- 0003610

- 2004

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBE R 10, 2019 James Lee Stanley appeals, pro se , 1 from the order entered on December 13, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, denying Stanley relief on his petition filed pursuant to the Post Convic tion Relief Act (PCRA), 41 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq . After granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, the PCRA court determined Stanley ’s petition, his third, was untimely and none of the statutory timeliness exception found in the PCRA applied. Stanley filed t his timely appeal. After a thorough review of the submission by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we quash the appeal for failure to follow our Supreme Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018).

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 The PCRA court allowed appointed counsel to withdraw from representation after filing a Turner/Finley no - merit letter.J

- S33016

- 19

- 2

-

Walker requires an appellant to file separate notices of appeal where a single order disposes of issues under multiple docket numbers. Stanley’ s PCRA petition and appeal both address his convictions under docket numbers
CP

- 06

- CR

- 3610

- 04 and CP

- 06

- CR

- 1321

- 05. Accordingl y, Stanley was required to file separate appeals for each docket. He did not. Therefore, under the dictates of Walker , we quash the appeal. 2

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/10/2019

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 In addition to applying Walker , we also reviewed Stanley’s claim and the PCRA court’s disposition of the petition. We s ee no error in the PCRA court’s finding that the petition, filed approximately eight years late, was untimely and none of the statutory timeliness exceptions found at 42 P a.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) applied. Had we addressed the merits of this appeal in the body of this decision, Stanley would not have prevailed. However, because of our disposition of this matter, we will not provide an analysis of the issue.J

- S33016

- 19

- 3

-
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated July 26, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-211631) of Smart Trust 248,
comprising Smart Trust, Smart Ten Trust, Series 5.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


July 26, 2016
Exhibit 99.2


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

         The undersigned executive officer of Community Investors Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-QSB for the
period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                                               /s/Robert W. Siegel
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Name: Robert W. Siegel
                                               Title: Assistant Vice President,
                                                      Controller and Treasurer

Date: November 14, 2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CALIXTO SEGURA-MENDOZA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70155

Agency No. A095-738-786

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 22, 2015** 

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Calixto Segura-Mendoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

FILED

JUN 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, petitioner’s

request for oral argument, made in his opening brief, is denied. 
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny

the petition for review.

Segura-Mendoza has not challenged the agency’s dispositive determination

that his asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,

1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a

party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to SeguraMendoza’s asylum claim. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Segura-Mendoza’s

experiences with FMLN members and gang members in El Salvador did not rise to

the level of past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000)

(record did not compel finding threats against petitioner, including death threats,

constituted past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s

determination that Segura-Mendoza failed to establish it is more likely than not

that he would be persecuted if returned to El Salvador. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319

F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003) (to qualify for withholding of removal, petitioner

must show that it is more probable than not that he would suffer future

persecution). Thus, Segura-Mendoza’s withholding of removal claim fails. 

2 13-70155
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief

because Segura-Mendoza failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in El

Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 13-70155
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                   ------------


[GRAPHIC OMITTED -- LOGO]
GRANT THORNTON LLP


        Consent of Independent Registered
        Public Accounting Firm

                                                   Grant Thornton LLP
                                                   Sun Life Plaza, East Tower
                                                   1000-112 4th Avenue SW
                                                   Calgary, AB
                                                   T2P 0H3

                                                   T (403) 260-2500
                                                   F (403) 260-2571
                                                   www.GrantThornton.ca




To the Board of Directors of Compton Petroleum Corporation

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:

o    our Independent  Auditors' Report dated March 24, 2008 on the consolidated
     balance  sheets of Compton  Petroleum  Corporation  (the  "Company") as at
     December 31, 2007 and 2006,  and the  consolidated  statements of earnings
     and other comprehensive  income,  retained earnings and cash flow for each
     of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007; and

o    our Independent Auditors' Report dated March 24, 2008 on the effectiveness
     of internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2007;

each of which is  contained  in this annual  report on Form 40-F of the Company
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.




                                                      /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
Calgary, Canada
March 26, 2008                                            Chartered Accountants
HOUSING AUTHORITY v. CREECH.

No. 114P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Robert Spence, Jr., Smithfield, for Smithfield Housing Authority.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of March 2007 by Defendant for "Petition for Relief":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of May 2007."
William Alexander RICHARDS, Jr., Taxpayer v. NORTH CAROLINA TAX REVIEW BOARD and E. Norris Tolson, Secretary of Revenue, North Carolina Department of Revenue.

No. 329P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

George B. Hyler, Jr., Robert J. Lopez, Asheville, for Richards.

Michael D. Youth, Assistant Attorney General, for Tax Review Board, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 645 S.E.2d 196.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of July 2007 by Petitioner 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:

*652"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."
STATE v. PALMER.

No. COA07-811.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Rutherford (06CRS50421).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 451/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 451/2014 of 2 May 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 451/2014                     

# of 2 May 2014

# 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, 2 May 2014.

*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.
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Frofessional Standards, Petitioner; Lynne Marie Kohm, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 431]

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1989, was suspended by this Court’s order dated June 15, 2000 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (273 AD2d 600 [2000])..

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that she has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator *691of the Courts *(see*22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and she is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
STATE v. FELIX.

No. COA07-393.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 4, 2007.

Certification Date September 24, 2007.

Appeal from Wilson (04CRS53088).

Case reported without published opinion Judgment Arrested.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1997
<CASH>                                             116
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                       647
<INVENTORY>                                     21,351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,755
<PP&E>                                          25,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,962
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,521
<BONDS>                                         25,390
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,863
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,658
<SALES>                                        151,692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,692
<CGS>                                          115,637
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,879
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,176
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,907
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,269
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37
        

</TABLE>
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1183/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1183/2014 of 30 October 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for common sole in area VIIa            by vessels flying the flag of Belgium         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1183/2014                     

# of 30 October 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for common sole in area VIIa by vessels flying the flag of Belgium

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2) lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 30 October 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2005-21783; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-24]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Meade Municipal Airport, KS

#                         DATES:                         *Effective Date:*

901 UTC, October 27, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 20, 2005 (70 FR 41613). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on October 27, 2005. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Kansas City, MO on August 23, 2005.

Elizabeth S. Wallis,

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.

[FR Doc. 05-17568  Filed 9-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Bryant Anthony Maxie, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00140

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 276th District Court of Morris County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 10,754CR ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t

. We note that the appellant, Bryant Anthony Maxie, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MA RCH 6, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
LAKEVIEW CONDOMINIUM ASS'N v. VILLAGE OF PINEHURST.

No. COA06-1001.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 7, 2007.

Certification Date August 27, 2007.

Appeal from Moore (04CVS718).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Archibald Candy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending August 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted A. Shepherd, 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:

| | Date: December 16, 2002                                                           
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/TED A. SHEPHERDTed A. Shepherd President, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary

---



QuickLinks