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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7734

BILLY G. ASEMANI,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; SECRETARY OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:07-cv-02969-RDB)

Submitted: August 25, 2008 Decided: September 8, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy G. Asemani seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition.

Asemani seeks a declaration that the Attorney General is the proper

respondent in his § 2241 proceedings. In the underlying petition,

he requested that the Attorney General notify the Maryland State

Division of Corrections that Asemani will not be taken into federal

custody for removal purposes following completion of his state

sentence because he is a United States national. He denies,

however, that his § 2241 petition is an effort to seek review of

his removal proceedings, and he seeks no relief from Maryland

prison officials. Because the relief sought by Asemani is

inextricably intertwined with his removal proceedings, and the

district court did not have jurisdiction over those proceedings, it

properly declined to issue an advisory opinion regarding the proper

respondent or Asemani’s nationality. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order. 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
#### In the Matter of Hector Lopez, Petitioner, v Michael Mcginnis, as Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[798 NYS2d 923]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner challenges a tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the damage, misuse or destruction of state property after a stain was discovered on petitioner’s mattress during a random cell search. Inasmuch as the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who issued it provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see Matter of Mathieu v Giambruno,*9 AD 3d 632, 633 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 609 [2004]; *Matter of Cooper v Selsky,*7 AD3d 902, 903 [2004]), we confirm. Petitioner’s contention that his right to submit documentary evidence at the disciplinary hearing was violated is unpersuasive since the record reveals that the documents he requested do not exist *(see Matter of Spirles v Goord,*308 AD2d 610, 611 [2003]; *Matter of Mena v Goord,*275 AD2d 828, 828 [2000])/ Finally, nothing in the record supports petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the Hearing Officer was biased *(see Matter of Scott v Goord,*268 AD2d 631, 632 [2000]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Order entered August 11, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00215

- CV

MARSHA DENISE DILLON, BENEFICIARY, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF BASKIN J. CULPEPPER AND MARS HA DILLON,

INDIVIDUALLY, Appellant s

V.

KIMBERLY KING, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR

- 17

- 01307

- 2

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants ’ August 7, 2020 opposed motion for extension

of time to file their brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed

no later than August 21, 2020.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,066-01

EX P ARTE DAVID K

EITH SAULS, Ap plicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 58646-B-1 IN THE 78 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM WICHITA COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of evading arr est and sentenc ed to twenty -five y ear s’ imprisonment. The Se co n d Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Sauls v. State , No. 02-17-00224- CR (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth J une 28, 2018). A p p licant contends that his appellate counsel rende red ineffe ctive ass is ta n c e b e c a u s e c o u n s e l failed to timely notify Applicant that his co n v iction had been aff irmed or that he could file a pro

se petition for discre tionary revie w. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington ,2

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte W ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 9 7 ). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel on appea l. The trial cour

t may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hear ing, it sha ll de termine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall ap p o i nt an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s appellate counsel timely informed Applicant that his conviction had been aff irmed. The trial court shall als o m ake any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the disposition of Applicant’s cla im for habe as cor pus relief

. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental t ra n s cr i p t containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of t he date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: J uly

24, 2019 Do not publish
Written Statement of the President and Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

          Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Joseph P. Schneider
------------------------------------
Joseph P. Schneider
March 27, 2003
In the Matter of D.C.J.

No. COA15-503.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 3, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Quintiles Transnational Corp:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement Nos. 33-91026 on Form S-8, 333-03603 on Form S-8,
333-16553 on Form S-8, 333-40493 on Form S-8, 333-60797 on Form S-8, 333-19009
on Form S-3, 333-28919 on Form S-3, 333-38181 on Form S-3, 333-40497 on Form
S-3, 333-48403 on Form S-3, 333-65743 on Form S-3, 333-72495 on Form S-4,
333-72545 on Form S-4, and 333-75183 on Form S-8.

/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina
March 30, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,524
<PP&E>                                       3,369,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,562,885
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,305
<BONDS>                                      1,368,196
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     96,100
<COMMON>                                     1,669,260
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,562,885
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               358,887
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  235,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                123,750
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            123,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   118,256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
        

</TABLE>
Christopher W. ABELLS v. Tiffany J. MARTIN (formerly Abells).

No. 413P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Alicia J. Jurney, Raleigh, for Abells, Tiffany J. (Martin).

Christopher W. Abells, for Abells, Christopher W.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of December 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 28th of January 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 10th 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."
CITY OF ASHEVILLE v. STATE of North Carolina, et al.

No. 391PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

I. Faison Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General.

*804Robert W. Oast, Jr., City Attorney, for City of Asheville.

Daniel G. Clodfelter, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for City of Asheville.

T. Randolph Perkins, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for City of Asheville.

Jonathan M. Watkins, Charlotte, Attorney at Law.

Jason G. Idilbi, Charlotte, Attorney at Law.

Robert B. Long, Jr., Asheville, Attorney at Law, for City of Asheville.

Ronald K. Payne, Asheville, Attorney at Law.

Isham F. Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robin T. Currin, City of Ashville Attorney, for City of Asheville.

William Clarke, Asheville, Attorney at Law, for State of North Carolina.

Stephen W. Petersen, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for State of North Carolina.

Robert F. Orr, Asheville, Attorney at Law, for City of Asheville.

Matthew W. Sawchak, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for City of Asheville.

Allegra Collins, Attorney at Law, for International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Edward J. Coyne, III, Greenville, Attorney at Law, for Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2GO.

Jeremy M. Wilson, Wilmington, Attorney at Law, for Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2GO.

Gabriel Du Sablon, Attorney at Law, For City of Wilson.

James P. Cauley, III, Wilson, Attorney at Law, for City of Wilson.

Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Associate General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities.

Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 16th of February 2016 by Plaintiff:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of February 2016."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 7th day of March 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
State of North Carolina v. Soyer Lewis Moll

No. 107P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Jess D. Mekeel, Assistant Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

*32Soyer Lewis Moll, For Moll, Soyer Lewis.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 23rd of March 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Onslow County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of March 2016 by Defendant-Appellant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
In the Matter of K.A.F.

No. COA15-849.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
BLANKENSHIP v. BARTLETT.

No. 455PA06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 28, 2008.

Jamie L. Vavonese, Amie C. Sivon, Fuquay-Varina, for Blankenship, et al.

Alexander McC. Peters, Susan K. Nichols, Karen E. Long, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of October 2008 by Plaintiffs for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiffs (Blankenship, et al) shall have up to and including the 10th day of December 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 28th day of October 2009."
STATE v. CANNON.

No. COA07-1396.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Henderson (06CR57665).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF APRIL 19, 1997; THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 24 WEEKS ENDED APRIL 19, 1997; THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE 24 WEEKS ENDED APRIL 19,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-03-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-19-1997
<CASH>                                           4,444
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                       886
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,469
<PP&E>                                          37,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,674
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           103
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,544
<SALES>                                        241,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               241,931
<CGS>                                          191,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  237,404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (218)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   610
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,654
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,480
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20035

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANA VILLANUEVA-ALVARADO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-179-2

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ana Villanueva-Alvarado appeals the sentence imposed following her

guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to transport and harbor undocumented

aliens for the purpose of financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)

and (B). She argues that the district court clearly erred in enhancing her offense

level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5)(B) because one of her co-conspirators

brandished a weapon during the offense. She argues that she was unaware that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20035

2

any of her co-conspirators possessed a weapon and that it was not foreseeable to

her that one of them would brandish a weapon during the offense.

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de

novo and its findings of fact for clear error. See United States v. CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Charon, 442 F.3d

881, 887 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 260 (2006). Although there was no

direct evidence that Villanueva-Alvarado knew one of her co-conspirators

possessed and brandished a weapon during the course of the offense, the

evidence supported the district court’s finding that the brandishing of a weapon

by one of her co-conspirators was reasonably foreseeable to her. Accordingly, the

district court did not clearly err when it enhanced Villanueva-Alvarado’s offense

level pursuant to § 2L1.1(b)(5)(B). Moreover, because Villanueva-Alvarado was

sentenced within the recommended guidelines range, her sentence is

presumptively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007);

United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Minerly, Senior Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ James C. MinerlyJames C. MinerlySenior Financial OfficerJanuary 25, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent, Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
In the Matter of D.B. and B.B.

No. COA 15-1023.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# CE2004084EN.01005301.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/53

---

(2004/C 84 E/0059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3121/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Reduction of VAT on CDs and cassettes

Subject:

At the recent Ecofin Council in Luxembourg 7 October 2003, Commissioner Bolkestein announced that the Commission was against any reduction of VAT on audio recording media and CDs as this might create distortions of competition. A minority of members of the Council were in favour of lower rates.

Against the background of the current discussions in Unesco concerning the creation of an international legal instrument to safeguard cultural diversity will the Council examine whether a reduction of VAT is feasible and desirable for CDs by new artists and/or artists singing in local or regional languages and/or home-grown musicians (irrespective of whether or not they sing in their own language) and/or for certain genres of music? At the opening of the recent Unesco conference, President Ciampi said that Italy advocates the adoption of a legal instrument on cultural diversity, guaranteeing every country the protection of its own historical identity and the uniqueness of its physical and intangible cultural heritage.

Is the Council prepared to authorise some reduced VAT rates for CDs with the specific aim of safeguarding cultural diversity?

If so, what steps will the Council take to bring this about in the near future?

If not, what measures does the Council consider have higher priority in safeguarding cultural diversity?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

(8 March 2004)

The Commission proposal concerning reduced VAT rates is currently being examined by the Council.

Until those proceedings have been completed, the Council cannot reply to the Honourable Member's questions.

---