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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5491

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DWAYNE EDDIE JUSTUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief

District Judge. (CR-94-94-V)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 29, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, H. Thomas Church,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Eddie Justus pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute

and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846

(West Supp. 1995). He appeals his sentence of 87 months, contending

that the district court clearly erred in finding that he had not

accepted responsibility for his offense. United States Sentencing

Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 3E1.1 (Nov. 1994). We affirm.

Justus was arrested while co-defendants Donald and Mandy

Griffin were delivering 100 pounds of marijuana to him. In his

first statement to investigators, Justus said he had bought about

700 pounds of marijuana from the Griffins between 1991 and 1994.

This statement agreed with information from the Griffins that they

had been involved with about 800 pounds of marijuana since 1991 and

had sold the majority of it to Justus. However, in a later statement, Justus admitted to buying only 240 pounds of marijuana. His

last estimate was a mere 108 pounds, 70 pounds of which he said he

was holding for Griffin.

The adjustment for acceptance of responsibility may be denied

to a defendant who falsely denies or frivolously contests relevant

conduct which the district court determines to be true. USSG §

3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a)). We find that the district court did not

clearly err in denying the reduction to Justus on this basis.

The sentence imposed by the district court is therefore

affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
HOLMES v. CSX TRANSP., INC.

No. COA07-1571.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (07CVS4798).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EASON v. CLEVELAND DRAFT HOUSE, LLC.

No. COA08-684.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Johnston (07CVS3002).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
To the Board of Directors of Brittany Insurance Company Ltd.:
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
PetroFina S.A. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-61145) of our report dated March 22,
1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of PetroFina S.A. for the year
ended December 31, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of Brittany Insurance
Company Ltd. as of December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 and the related statements
of income and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended
December 31, 1998.
 
/s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK
Chartered Accountants
Hamilton, Bermuda
April 27, 1999
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40892 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JESUS MONTALVO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-609-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Montalvo-Rodriguez (Montalvo) ap p e a l s his sentence for having been found unlawfully p r e s ent in the United States following a prior deportation. He asserts that the district court plainly erred by denying him an opportunity for allocution. As the Govern m e n t concedes, the district court violated Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to allow Montalvo an opportunity to address the court before i t i m p o s e d his sentence. The error was clea r o r ob vious. See United States v. Reyna , 358 F.3d 344, 350 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May9, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40892 Document: 00511849862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2012No. 11-40892

( 5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We presume that the error violated Mon t a lv o ’ s substantial rights because the defense disputed, on several gr o u n d s, whether Montalvo should receive a downward departure or variance. See id. at 352. I n light of the particular facts of this case, we exercise our discreti o n t o correct the error. It occurred during Montalvo’s initial sentencing and not at a revocation hearing. See United States v. Avila-Cortez , 582 F.3d 602, 605-06 (5th Cir. 2009); Reyna , 358 F.3d at 352. Montalvo was given no opportunity to speak before the district court imposed the sentence. See Avila-Cortez , 582 F.3d at 607; United States v. Magw o o d , 4 4 5 F

. 3d 826, 829-30 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court personally addressed Montalvo only once before imposin g th e sentence, when it asked at the outset o f th e hearing whether he understood why he was there, whether he had reviewed sentencing materials with counsel, and whether he understood his sentencing range, which was reduced upon the Government’s motion that Montalvo receive an additional one-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Montalvo answered only, “Yes.” Additionally, Montalvo’s brief to this court specifies the arguments he would have made during allocution. See Avila-Cortez , 582 F.3d at 606-07. The only factor weighing against correcting the error is that defense counsel offered several arguments on Montalvo’s behalf. See Magwood , 445 F.3d at 830. We have previously exercised our discretion to correct an error even when coun s e l h a s offered arguments on a defendant’s behalf at sentencing. See Avila-Cortez , 582 F.3d at 606-07. Under the facts of this case, we opt to do so here. Accordingly, we VACATE the sent e nce and REMAND FOR RESENTENCING.

2 Case: 11-40892 Document: 00511849862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2012
Form of Common Stock Certificate



 Exhibit 4.1 

 

 








 BG MEDICINE, INC. 
 THE COMPANY WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH SHAREHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS, A SUMMARY OF THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS
OF STOCK OF THE COMPANY AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS, AND THE VARIATIONS IN RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS DETERMINED FOR EACH SERIES, WHICH ARE FIXED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
THE COMPANY, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, AND THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO DETERMINE VARIATIONS FOR FUTURE SERIES. SUCH REQUEST MAY BE MADE TO THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
OF THE COMPANY OR TO THE TRANSFER AGENT. 
  

													
	  

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:

	 					 
	TEN COM	 	- as tenants in common	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT-	  	  
	 	Custodian	 	  

	 	 		  		  	 (Cust)
	 		 	 (Minor)

	TEN ENT	 	- as tenants by the entireties	  		  	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act	 	  

	 	 		  		  		 	 (State)

	JT TEN	 	 - as joint tenants with right of survivorship 
   and not as tenants in common
	  	UNIF TRF MIN ACT	  	  
	 	Custodian (until age     )	  	  

	 	 	  		  	 (Cust)
	 		 		  	(Minor)
	 	 		  		  	 under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act
	 	  

	 	 		  		  		 	 (State)

	 	 	 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above
list.
  
	 	 	 	 	  	 

  

							
		 		 	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	
For value received,                  hereby
sell, assign and transfer unto
	 		 	 
		 		 	 
	
	  

	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)


							
		
	  
	 	
		
	  
	 	
		
	  
	 	Shares
	of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
		
	  
	 	Attorney
	to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 

																	
		 		 		 	 	  	
Signature(s) Guaranteed: Medallion Guarantee Stamp

	Dated:	 	  
	 	20	 	  
	 	 	  	 THE SIGNATURE(S)
SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE
17Ad-15.

		 		 		 	 	  
	Signature:	 	  
	 	 	  
		 		 		 	 	  
	Signature:	 	  
	 	 	  
		 	Notice:	  	The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate, in every particular, without alteration or enlargement, or
any change whatever.
STATE of North Carolina v. Omar Kareem SELLERS.

No. 314P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of September 2015 by Defendant 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 5th of November 2015."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34745]


Penn Eastern Rail Lines, Inc.--Operation Exemption--Expressway 95 
Industrial Park

    Penn Eastern Rail Lines, Inc. (Penn Eastern), a Class III rail 
carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 
to operate as a rail common carrier, approximately 1.15 miles of track 
and right-of-way on easements in the Expressway 95 Industrial Park (the 
Park) in Bensalem, Bucks County, PA. The track known as the Bensalem 
Branch is located along the east side of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor 
(NEC) at ATK milepost 70.2, between Philadelphia, PA, and Trenton, 
NJ.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Penn Eastern notes that Consolidated Rail Corporation 
(Conrail) formerly operated this track as exempt industrial trackage 
under 49 U.S.C. 10906 until the last customer ceased rail operations 
in 2002. Penn Eastern states that the track connects with portions 
of the NEC over which Conrail currently has operating rights. Penn 
Eastern also states that the line will initially serve three 
customers within the Park, but that it eventually expects to attract 
additional customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Penn Eastern certifies that its projected annual revenues as a 
result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class I 
or Class II rail carrier, and that its annual revenues will not exceed 
$5 million. The transaction was expected to be consummated on August 
26, 2005, the effective date of the exemption (7 days after the 
exemption was filed).
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34745, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a 
copy of each pleading must be served on John D. Heffner, 1920 N Street, 
NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: September 9, 2005.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-18352 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/1917Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/1917 of 20 October 2015 on the acceptance of Switzerland's contribution            for the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (EUCAP Sahel Mali/4/2015)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/1917                     

# of 20 October 2015

# on the acceptance of Switzerland's contribution for the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (EUCAP Sahel                        Mali/4/2015)                     

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)(1),                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Decision 2014/219/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (‘PSC’) to                              take relevant decisions on the acceptance of the proposed contributions to EUCAP Sahel Mali by third States.

(2)Following the recommendation of the Civilian Operations Commander, the PSC should accept the proposed contribution from Switzerland                              to EUCAP Sahel Mali and should consider the contribution as significant.

(3)Therefore, Switzerland should be exempted from financial contributions to the operational budget of EUCAP Sahel Mali,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

## Article 1U.K.Third States' contributions

1.The contribution from Switzerland to EUCAP Sahel Mali is accepted and is considered to be significant.                  

2.Switzerland is exempted from financial contributions to the operational budget of EUCAP Sahel Mali.                  

## Article 2U.K.Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 20 October 2015.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Cole and Duff

FRANKLIN CITY PUBLIC WORKS AND VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL GROUP SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM v. Record No. 0397-96-3 JUNE 25, 1996

HAYWOOD RIDDICK

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Robert A. Rapaport; Lynne M. Ferris; Knight, Dudley, Clarke & Dolph, on brief), for appellants. No brief for appellee.

Franklin City Public Works and its insurer contend that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that Haywood Riddick's hearing loss qualifies as an occupational "disease" under the Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act").

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. This appeal is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Stenrich Group v. Jemmott , 251 Va. 186, 199, 467 S.E.2d 795, 802 (1996) (holding that "job-related impairments resulting from cumulative trauma caused by repetitive motion, however labeled or however defined, are, as a matter of law, not compensable under the present provisions of the Act"). Accordingly, we reverse the commission's decision.

Reversed.
STATE of North Carolina v. John Edward BUTLER.

No. 629P01-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

John Edward Butler, for Butler, John Edward.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 28th of January 2016."
# CE2004088EN.01060601.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/606 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/606

---

(2004/C 88 E/0625)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0988/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Prato

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Prato, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Prato has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Prato has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC. v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES.

No. 301P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 8th of September 2015 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:

> "Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
NUMBER 13-19-00584-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

DEAN EDWARD BARRERA, Appellant,

v.

RUBY VENUS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 445th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

Appellant, Dean Edward Barrera, appealed a judgment entered by the 445th 

District Court in Cameron County, Texas in cause number 2018-DCL-06103-I.

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. More than ten days have passed,

and appellee has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P.

10.3 (a).
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion

to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Based on our review of the record, dismissal of the appeal would

not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. See

id. 42.1(a)(1). Accordingly, appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is

hereby DISMISSED. Pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED. Costs will

be taxed against appellant. See id. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the

court will tax costs against the appellant.”). Having dismissed the appeal at

appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will 

issue forthwith.

GREGORY T. PERKES

Justice 

Delivered and filed the

20th day of December, 2019.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAMION BUNCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:15-cr-00087-RGD-LRL-1; 

4:18-cv-00013-RGD)

Submitted: December 16, 2020 Decided: December 31, 2020

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damion Bunch, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Damion Bunch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bunch 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 contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED