alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7575** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. TRAVIS NICODEMUS GRADY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. ( 5:10

- cr - 00002

- GEC

- 1; 5:14

- cv - 80780

- GEC

- RSB )

Submitted : December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Travis Nicodemus Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Marie Harrigan Kulpa, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Travis Nicodemus Grady seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of th e denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the co nstitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispo sitive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grady has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# CE2004070EN.01006901.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/69

---

(2004/C 70 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1962/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject:   Future accounting standards in the insurance sector

Subject:

For several months, banking and insurance professionals have been exposing the dangers of across-the-board application of the future IAS accounting standards to their professions. While financing practices involve the pooling of risks, the use of standard IAS 39 may very well produce an untrue picture of the actual position of firms on the date of closure of accounts because it takes market value as the basis for valuing assets and liabilities.

My Written Question P-2507/02 (1) drew the Commission's attention to the risks posed by this method. In a detailed reply dated 15 October 2002, Commissioner Bolkestein stated that the Commission was expecting fresh proposals from the IAS Board in this connection and that at all events, in its view, ‘any apparent reduction in the degree of prudence in the financial statements should not lead to less prudence in the prudential regulation of relevant entities’.

1

IAS is reported to have rejected, after all, the proposals submitted to it on amending IAS 39. What action does the Commission intend to take to avoid what are ever more worrying risks?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

(2 July 2003)

International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39 is being revised. Bilateral technical meetings are taking place between the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the European banking industry on how this standard should be applied to operations relating to rate risk cover. This dialogue is on track. The Commission would like insurance professionals to become involved quickly. It should also be pointed out that the IASB will present its draft interim standard for insurance for public consultation in July 2003. The purpose of the standard is to facilitate the transition by insurance companies to IAS on 1 January 2005 by granting them a number of exemptions.

---

(1)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 9.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6808

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOROTHY ANN OILER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00098-2)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Thane Clifford, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John Lanier File, John

J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dorothy Ann Oiler appeals the district court’s order

denying her request for re-sentencing, but granting her motion for

reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Oiler, No. 5:06-cr-00098-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 7, 2008). We grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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 SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 08 / 06–1668 

Filed August 22, 2008 

IN RE THE DETENTION OF 

FRANCISCO F. ESCOBEDO, 

FRANCISCO F. ESCOBEDO, 

 Appellant. 

 Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, 

Charles L. Smith III, Judge. 

 Respondent in a civil commitment proceeding appeals from civil 

commitment after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Michael H. Adams 

and Greta Truman, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant. 

 Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Andrew B. 

Prosser, and Rebecca Goettsch, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
 2

PER CURIAM.

 After a jury found Francisco Escobedo to be a “sexually violent 

predator” (SVP), as defined in Iowa Code section 229A.2(11) (2005), the 

district court committed him to the custody of the department of human 

services as required by section 229A.7(5). On appeal, Escobedo asserts 

numerous claims of error, each of which is governed by similar recent 

cases. 

 Escobedo first claims his rights to due process and equal 

protection were violated by the provision in Iowa Code section 229A.7(4) 

that entitled the attorney general to demand a jury trial. Our recent 

opinion in In re Detention of Hennings, 744 N.W.2d 333 (Iowa 2008), 

squarely addressed and rejected a similar argument. For the reasons 

stated in that opinion, the right of the attorney general to demand a jury 

trial under section 229A.7(4) does not violate the Due Process and Equal 

Protection Clauses of the Constitutions of the United States and Iowa. 

 Next, Escobedo asserts three legal errors: insufficiency of the 

evidence, admission of irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence, and 

erroneous jury instructions. Escobedo’s arguments supporting these 

three errors are premised on his claim that chapter 229A requires a 

present likelihood of reoffense at the time of the proposed commitment. 

We rejected such an interpretation in In re Detention of Pierce, 748 

N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2008). Pierce is dispositive of Escobedo’s claims of 

legal error. For the reasons stated in that opinion, we conclude the 

district court did not commit the legal errors asserted by Escobedo. 

 We conclude Iowa Code section 229A.7(4) does not violate 

Escobedo’s rights to due process and equal protection, and the district 
 3

court did not err in interpreting and applying chapter 229A. 

Consequently, we affirm the district court. 

 AFFIRMED.

 All justices concur except Baker, J., who takes no part. 

 This is not a published opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                    20
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                            (261)
<INVENTORY>                                            4,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       6,420
<PP&E>                                                 2,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (1,488)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         8,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  9,145
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                  71
<OTHER-SE>                                            (1,756)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           8,336
<SALES>                                                2,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       2,542
<CGS>                                                  1,895
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,027
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         164
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (545)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (545)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (545)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.08)
        


</TABLE>
##### 



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
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2002 as
originally filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 13, 2002 and as amended on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, David Mahoney, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, 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 represents, in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                       
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2003 |  | /s/ David MahoneyDavid Mahoney
Chief Executive Officer







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



31
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,430
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,015,867
<DEPRECIATION>                               (141,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 945,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        405,606
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   945,488
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,019
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,297
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,092
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,092
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
CKE Restaurants, Inc.: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-83666,
333-76884, 333-41266, 333-83601, 33-56313, 33-55337, 333-12399, 33-53089-01, 2-86142-01,
33-31190-01, 333-75880, and 33-111284) of CKE Restaurants, Inc. of our reports dated April 21,
2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of CKE Restaurants, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of January 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 31, 2005,
managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
January 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of January
31, 2005, which reports appear in the January 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of CKE
Restaurants, Inc. As discussed in note 1 of the notes to consolidated financial statements, the consolidated
financial statements for all periods presented have been restated. Our report dated April 21, 2005, on managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
as of January 31, 2005, expresses our opinion that CKE Restaurants, Inc. did not maintain effective
internal control over financial reporting as of January 31, 2005 because of the effect of a
material weakness on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains an
explanatory paragraph that states there was a deficiency in CKE Restaurants, Inc.s internal
control associated with the selection, monitoring and review of assumptions and factors affecting
certain of its depreciation and lease accounting policies and procedures. With regard to its
depreciation policies and procedures, CKE Restaurants, Inc. did not establish and maintain
appropriate depreciable lives for fixed assets subject to operating leases. With regard to its
lease accounting policies and procedures, CKE Restaurants, Inc. did not properly apply U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles to so-called rent holidays  the period during which a
tenant is in possession of the leased property but the lease payments have not yet begun  because
CKE Restaurants, Inc. was not recording straight-line rent expense for the period from possession
of a leased property to the date of rent commencement. As discussed in notes 1 and 4 of the notes to consolidated financial statements, CKE Restaurants,
Inc. adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated
with Exit or Disposal Activities, during the first and fourth quarters of fiscal 2003,
respectively. /s/ KPMG LLP Orange County, California
April 28, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,718
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      278
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,996
<PP&E>                                           1,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                     640
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,360
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,714
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,139
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     98
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 39
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        59
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
Fannie KEE, Employee, Plaintiff v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC., Employer, Self-Insured (Brentwood Services, Third-Party Administrator), Defendant.

No. COA15-646.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part.
# CE2004070EN.01019402.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/194 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/194

---

(2004/C 70 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3240/03

by Thierry Cornillet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Abolition of operating grants for Europe Info-Points

Subject:

The Commission recently decided to abolish the operating grant for Europe Info-Points despite the fact that the present juncture will be decisive for the future of the European Union.

Given the current context, i.e. the Intergovernmental Conference, national campaigns for the adoption of the future Constitution and the forthcoming European elections, is the Commission aware that its decision could not have come at a more inappropriate time?

Does the Commission fully realise how valuable the Europe Info-Points are in terms of providing information and serving as communication channels with a view to bringing Europe closer to its citizens?

Moreover, in view of the new Financial Regulation, as well as the size of the grant allocated by the Commission, why did it not provide for a gradual reduction rather than a sudden stop, which is plunging these offices into financial difficulty, forcing them to reduce staff and, in some cases, to close down?

---
Tavario Brunson, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 9, 2016

**594ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on May 26, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Roger E. Henderson be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Henderson shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

**595Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Henderson shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3710 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 

of continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMS) as durable medical 

equipment under Medicare, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2013 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for coverage of continuous glucose monitoring systems 

(CGMS) as durable medical equipment under Medicare, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare CGM Cov5 erage Act’’. 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3710 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE 

2 MONITORING SYSTEMS (CGMS) AS DURABLE 

3 MEDICAL EQUIPMENT (DME). 

4 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 1861(n) of the So5 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended by add6 ing at the end the following: ‘‘Such term also includes con7 tinuous glucose monitoring systems (including a trans8 mitter, receiver, sensors, and test strips required for 

9 use).’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (a) shall apply to the implementation of moni12 toring systems occurring on or after January 1, 2015. 

Æ 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS