alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Joseph Burton MIAL

17P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Mr. Joseph Burton Mial, for Mial, Joseph Burton

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Raleigh, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. J. Douglas Henderson, Greensboro, District Attorney, for State

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of January 2018 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 22, 2016

No. 04-15-00482-CV

IN RE ESPERANZA HUGHES,

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-03-54382-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC has filed a motion for rehearing and motion 

for en banc reconsideration. The Court requests that the appellants Metropolitan Life Insurance 

Company and Metropolitan Tower Resources Group, Inc. file a response on or before October 

12, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.2.

It is so ORDERED on September 22, 2016.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ______________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 12002E225

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Five: Institutions of the Community - Title I: Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 4: The Court of Justice - Article 225 - Article 168a - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) -***Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0124 - 0124 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0270 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0061 - Consolidated version*

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Five: Institutions of the Community

Title I: Provisions governing the institutions

Chapter 1: The institutions

Section 4: The Court of Justice

Article 225

Article 168a - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 225 

1. The Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance actions or proceedings referred to in Articles 230, 232, 235, 236 and 238, with the exception of those assigned to a judicial panel and those reserved in the Statute for the Court of Justice. The Statute may provide for the Court of First Instance to have jurisdiction for other classes of action or proceeding.

Decisions given by the Court of First Instance under this paragraph may be subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law only, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute.

2. The Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine actions or proceedings brought against decisions of the judicial panels set up under Article 225a.

Decisions given by the Court of First Instance under this paragraph may exceptionally be subject to review by the Court of Justice, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute, where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of Community law being affected.

3. The Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 234, in specific areas laid down by the Statute.

Where the Court of First Instance considers that the case requires a decision of principle likely to affect the unity or consistency of Community law, it may refer the case to the Court of Justice for a ruling.

Decisions given by the Court of First Instance on questions referred for a preliminary ruling may exceptionally be subject to review by the Court of Justice, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute, where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of Community law being affected.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification ofChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aames Investment Corporation(the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned, A. Jay Meyerson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Jon D. Van Deuren., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1.     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Dated: May 10, 2006 | /s/ A. JAY MEYERSON                    |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                     | A. Jay Meyerson                        |
|                     | *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* |
| Dated: May 10, 2006 | /s/ JON D. VAN DEUREN                  |
|                     | Jon D. Van Deuren                      |
|                     | *Chief Financial Officer*              |

 

----
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50630 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ALBERTO DIAZ

- HERNANDEZ, also known as Juan Alberto Hernandez , Defendant

- Appellant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cons olidated with 1 7

- 50634
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v
. ALBERTO DIAZ

- HERNANDEZ, also known as Juan Alberto Diaz, also known as Alberto Diaz, also known as Alberto Hernandez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:13

- CR

- 46

- 1 USDC No. 1:17

- CR

- 153

- 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 2, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50630 Document: 00514370509 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2018No. 17

- 50630 c/ w No. 17

- 50634

2 Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alberto Diaz

Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Diaz

- Hernandez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal s present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL S ARE DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-50630 Document: 00514370509 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2018
# Official Journal C 272/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.272.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 272 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 558 September 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.272.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 272

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 558 September 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2012/C 272/01 | Financial Activity Report 2011 — Section II — European Council and Council | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2012/C 272/01

Financial Activity Report 2011 — Section II — European Council and Council

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
TULLY v. CITY OF WILMINGTON

348A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 9, 2016

Katherine Lewis Parker, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, S. Luke Largess, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For Tully, Kevin J.

Katie Weaver Hartzog, Attorney at Law, Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For City of Wilmington.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of November 2016 by Plaintiff for Withdrawal of Appearance and for Substitution of Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of November 2016."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. 
The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential 
trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant 
applications, the disclosure of which would be constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel, Sickle Cell Disease Clinical Research 
Network.
    Date: October 31-November 1, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Double Tree Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: William J. Johnson, PhD, Review Branch, Division 
of Extramural Affairs, NIH/NHLBI, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7924, 301-435-0317, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#244e4b4c4a574b4a53644a4c48464d0a4a4d4c0a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="573d383f392438392017393f3b353e79393e3f79303821">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 23, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-19537 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6055

LAMONT DORSEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. T.S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv - 01249

- TSE

- MSN )

Submitted : July 31, 2018 Decided: August 30, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Lamont Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lamont Dorsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as u ntimely filed

. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu tional 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 constitutional 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 dispositive procedural ruli ng is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S.
at 484

- 85. We have independently review e d the record and conclude that , although Dorsey’s petition was filed within the one

- year lim itations period, he has not made the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right because evaluating the credibility of witnesses is a matter entrusted to the trier of fact, and we will not redetermine the credibility of a witness on federal h abeas review. See Merzbacher v. Shearin , 706 F.3d 356, 364 (4th Cir. 2013) . Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument3 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1605-DR]


Alabama; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Alabama (FEMA-1605-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective September 26, 2005.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department 
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-19813 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of ADESA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cameron C. Hitchcock,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18USC 1350), that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| /s/ CAMERON C. HITCHCOCK                           |     |
|---------------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Cameron C. Hitchcock                                    |     |
| *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer* | * * |

 

*This certification accompanies the Report pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except tothe extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.*

52

----
#### Tommy MORELAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D02-2042.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 3, 2003.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Dea Abramschmitt, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the automatic denial of his motion to correct a sentencing error, which occurred when the trial court *575failed to rule on the motion within sixty (60) days, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(l)B. The basis for his motion is the discrepancy between the number of days credit for time served written in the sentencing order (536) and that orally pronounced by the trial court at sentencing (556).

The State agrees that the written sentencing order does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. However, it suggests that the error may not be clerical in nature, and that the case should be remanded to the trial court to determine the correct number of days to be credited before the correction is made.

This court has consistently held that an oral pronouncement at sentencing prevails over a written order. *See, e.g., Anthony v. State,*705 So.2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); *Gibbs v. State,*693 So.2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); *Thomas v. State,*595 So.2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Where there is no ambiguity in the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. Only where there is an ambiguity in the oral pronouncement is there a need for the court to make a factual determination before making the correction. *See Tory v. State,*686 So.2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

There is no ambiguity in this record. The trial court clearly pronounced a credit of 556 days time served. The case is therefore remanded to the trial court to correct the sentencing order to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement. *Johnson v. State,*789 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

FARMER, C.J., SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR SERRATOS-QUIROZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-75082

Agency No. A097-764-754

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Salvador Serratos-Quiroz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our

FILED

JUN 24 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-75082

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part

the petition for review.

Our review of the record reveals no support for Serratos-Quiroz’s contention

that the IJ prejudged his cancellation claim or displayed any bias or animosity

toward him. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzalez, 497 F.3d 919, 925-26 (9th Cir.

2007) (acknowledging the agency’s standard for recusal set forth in Matter of

Exame, 18 I. & N. Dec. 303, 306 (BIA 1982)).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that

Serratos-Quiroz failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his

U.S. citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,

552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).

Finally, Serratos-Quiroz’s contention–that his removal would result in the

deprivation of his children’s right to remain with their father–does not raise a

constitutional claim. See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13

(9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that agency necessarily considers effect of parent’s

removal on the interests of the child, and does not act in a manner contrary to

Congress’ intent, when evaluating and denying cancellation claim); SalvadorCalleros v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that hardship

standard does not violate due process).
3 08-75082

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**J. ROE BUCKLEY / CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

I, J. Roe Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation,Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P. (the “Registrant”), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 and filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Report”) by the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of that section. 

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.
Holly Energy Partners, L.P.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings
To Fixed Charges
 Six MonthsEnded
    
    
    Years Ended December 31,June 30, 2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003Earnings:Net income
    
    $
    11,613
    
    
    $
    39,271
    
    
    $
    27,543
    
    
    $
    26,816
    
    
    $
    32,494
    
    
    $
    581Minority interest in consolidated subsidiary
    
    
    670
    
    
    
    1,067
    
    
    
    680
    
    
    
    740
    
    
    
    1,994
    
    
    
    758Income from equity investee
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (894
    )12,283
    
    
    $
    40,338
    
    
    
    28,223
    
    
    
    27,556
    
    
    
    34,488
    
    
    
    445Add:Total fixed charges (per below)
    
    
    10,025
    
    
    
    15,125
    
    
    
    14,815
    
    
    
    11,324
    
    
    
    2,279
    
    
    
    1,665Total earnings
    
    $
    22,308
    
    
    $
    55,463
    
    
    $
    43,038
    
    
    $
    38,880
    
    
    $
    36,767
    
    
    $
    2,110Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    9,040
    
    
    $
    13,289
    
    
    $
    13,056
    
    
    $
    9,633
    
    
    $
    697
    
    
    $
    Estimate of interest within rental expense(1)
    
    
    985
    
    
    
    1,836
    
    
    
    1,759
    
    
    
    1,691
    
    
    
    1,582
    
    
    
    1,665Total fixed charges
    
    $
    10,025
    
    
    $
    15,125
    
    
    $
    14,815
    
    
    $
    11,324
    
    
    $
    2,279
    
    
    $
    1,665Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.23
    
    
    
    3.67
    
    
    
    2.91
    
    
    
    3.43
    
    
    
    16.13
    
    
    
    1.27
 
 (1)
    
    Represents 30% of the total operating lease rental expense which is that portion deemed to be
interest.