alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DONALD M AC PHER SON,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
and ESTATE OF JUDITH A. M AY, DEC EASED; e t a l.,

Pe t i tione rs,
v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

NAL REVENUE, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 16-71795 Ta x C t. No. 14545-12L
M EM O R ANDUM *

DONALD M AC PHER SON,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
and LEONAR

D L. B EST a

n d EVELYN R
. B EST, Pe t i tione rs, No. 16-72599 Ta x C t. No. 26662-10L 

# FIL ED N OV 16 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.v.

C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

NAL REVENUE, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . Appe a l from

a De c ision of the Unite d Stat e s Tax C ourt Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 14, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f C irc uit Judge , PAEZ, C irc uit Judge , a nd SAVAGE, *** Distric t Judge
. Attorne y Dona ld W . M a c Phe rson a ppe a ls the TaxC o urt’ s im position of
sa nc tions in two c a se s in whic h he c ounse le d his ta xpa y e r c lie nts to m a i nta in frivolous positions. W

e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 26 U.S.C . § 7482(a)(1), and
we a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thehistory

of this c a s e , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . The Tax C ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in orde ring M a c Phe rson to pa y e xc e ss c osts pursua

nt to 26 U.S.C . § 6673(a)(2). Se e Grime s v . C IR , 806 F.2d

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Tim othy

J. Sa va ge , Unite d

State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Pe nnsy lva nia , sitting by

de s igna tion. 21451, 1454 (9th C ir. 1986) (sta n da rd of re vie w). M a c Phe rson “ m ultiplie d the proc e e dings in [both c a se s] unre a sona bly and ve xatiously
. ” 26 U.S.C
. § 6673(a )(2). He “ knowingly or re c kle ssly

ra ise [d] a frivolous a

rgum e nt.” Moore
v . K e e gan Mgmt. C

o. (In reK

e e gan Mgmt. C

o. Se c . Litig.) , 78 F.3d 431, 436 (9th C ir. 1996). On be ha lf of his c lie nts, he a d va nc e d a position c o ntra

ry to e sta blishe d la w a nd unsupporte d by fa c t. In a signe d de c la

ra tion, here pre se n te d tha t he kne w his position would be

unsuc c e ssful. The Ta x C ourt a p propria t e ly orde re d M a c Phe rson to pa

y only those c osts inc urre d

in re s ponding to M a c Phe rson’ s frivolous a

rgum e nts. Se e Moore , 78 F.3d a t 435.

AFFIRM E D.

3
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19975]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Interest Rates; Quarterly Determinations

    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called 
the optional ``peg'' rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This 
rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for 
maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be 
used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. 
This rate will be 4.500 (4\1/2\) percent for the October-December 
quarter of FY 2006.

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Financial Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-19975 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Jeffrey Robert PARISI

No. 65A17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

John W. Congleton, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Michele A. Goldman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Parisi, Jeffrey Robert.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd of June 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
#### Alton Dewayne PORTLOCK v. STATE of Alabama.

CR-01-0708.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 2002.

Rehearing Denied June 14, 2002.

Certiorari Denied Dec. 13, 2002 Alabama Supreme Court 1011795.

Joseph D. Quinlivan, Jr., Mobile, for appellant.

William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Stephen N. Dodd, asst. atty. gen., for ap-pellee.

BASCHAB, Judge.

AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.

McMILLAN, P.J., and SHAW and WISE, JJ., concur; COBB, J., concurs in the result, with opinion.

COBB, Judge,

concurring in the result.

I agree that Alton Dewayne Portlock’s conviction should be affirmed; however, unlike the majority, I believe that Portlock did preserve his contention that the trial court erred in refusing to give his requested jury instructions on heat-of-passion manslaughter.

Testimony at trial was to the effect that Portlock and the victim were arguing. As Portlock began to walk away, the victim called him a “punkass motherfucking bitch.” Portlock turned, stared at the victim, then shot him in the head three times and in the chest once. (R. 90.)

Portlock’s written requested jury charge no. 5 was as follows:

> “The court charges the jury that a lesser included offense charged in the indictment is the offense of heat of passion manslaughter.”

(C. 17.)

Before the jury began deliberating, Portlock made the following objection to the trial court’s refusal to give requested charge no. 5:

> “I would like to take exception to the Court failing to give my requested charge[] numbered 5 ... concerning manslaughter as a lesser included charge, in light of the fact, Judge, that we did present sufficient evidence for

> *1031the Court to charge the jury on self-defense.”

(R. 257.)

I believe that “[i]t is clear that the trial court understood the basis for the objection.” *Covington v. State,*620 So.2d 122, 127 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), citing *Felder v. State, 593*So.2d 121, 122-23 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); *Marshall v. State,*570 So.2d 832, 834 (Ala.Crim.App.1990); *Ex parte McCall,*594 So.2d 628, 631 (Ala.1991); and *Ex parte Pettway,*594 So.2d 1196, 1200 (Ala.1991).

Although I believe the claim is preserved, the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury as requested was not error. The record supports the trial court’s ruling that there was “no evidence whatsoever that would justify a charge of lesser included offense of manslaughter.” (R. 196.) “Mere words ... no matter how abusive or insulting, will *not*reduce a homicide from murder to manslaughter.” *MacEwan v. State,*701 So.2d 66, 69 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).

Therefore, though I agree with the result reached by the majority in its unpublished memorandum, I disagree with its rationale.
STATE v. Max Tracy EARLS

227P14-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Max Tracy Earls, for Earls, Max Tracy.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by Defendant for Review of a Constitutional Question:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
#### David HINKEL and Jacquelyn Hinkel, Lauren Hinkel Faust and Lisa Hinkel Mipro v. WINN-DIXIE LOUISIANA, INC. and XYZ Insurance Company.

No. 2003-CC-1374.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re MeCue Corporation; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 93-948; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-0635.

Denied.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3380 — UTC/Linde Kältechnik)

(2005/C 7/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 12 July 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
In the MATTER OF: J.W.M., JR.

No. COA 17-777

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Glenn TURNER

No. 440PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed August 17, 2018

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Christopher W. Brooks, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Daniel L. Spiegel, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in *State v. Curtis* , --- N.C. ----, 817 S.E.2d 187, 2018 WL 3954267 (Aug. 17, 2018) (No. 441PA16), we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to that court for remand to the Superior Court, Caldwell County, with instructions to vacate the 15 January 2016 Order Affirming District Court Order and for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion in *Curtis* .

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
In the MATTER OF: A.H.

No. COA18-207

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 21, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Torrey GRADY

179A14-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 7, 2018

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for the State of North Carolina

Luke M. Everett, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorneys at Law, for Grady, Torrey Dale

Christopher A. Brook, Legal Director, for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of October 2018 by American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of November 2018."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. (the‘‘Company’’) for the quarterly period endedSeptember  30,  2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), Glenn J. Mouridy, as Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

|        |  |  |                                                                      |
|--------|--|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:    |  |  | /s/GLENN J. MOURIDY                                                  |
|   |  |  | Glenn J. MouridyPresident and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 8,2006 |
|        |

This certification accompanies theReport pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff uponrequest.

----
----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANACIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d),                and,  |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| (2)    | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| Dated:  December                31, 2007 |   | /s/Howard                Herman        |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                               |   |                                   |   |
|                                               |   | Howard                Herman           |   |
|                                               |   |                                   |   |
|                                               |   | Chief                Financial Officer |   |
STATE of North Carolina v. Frank Durand TOMLIN

No. 532P08-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, Frank Durand Tomlin, for Tomlin, Frank Durand.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th of March 2018 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Guilford County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF APPNET,  INC. AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE  MONTHS ENDED  DECEMBER 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         66,549
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,947
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               99,510
<PP&E>                                         11,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,396
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 207,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          38,204
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       17
<OTHER-SE>                                     164,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   207,826
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,707
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  181,994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               559
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (76,574)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   827
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (77,401)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (79,540)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (3.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (3.03)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6911

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PHILLIP CORDELL WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-99-360, CA-01-478-A) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 28, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Cordell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Phillip Cordell Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Williams , Nos. CR-99-360; CA-01-478-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.2**

#### ** **

#### **CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I. John B. Wadsworth, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. (the “registrant”);

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a) designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal  control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  November 15, 2004 |
|--------------------------|
| ** **               | ** ** | **/S/ JOHN B. WADSWORTH** | ** ** | ** ** |
|                     | John B. Wadsworth |   |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                     | (Principal Financial Officer) |   |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark A. Smith, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 874]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered April 19, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel is without merit *(see, People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713; *People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397; *People v Jackson,*70 NY2d 768).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00101-CR

TONYA PLATT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-CR-3580-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 17, 2013
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 23-0005 

IN RE MOTION OF JOSEPH A. FARCHIONE FOR 

ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF 

MONTANA 

ORDERFIL7„ -i 

NOV 28 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Suprerne Court 

',>t8te of Montana 

Joseph A. Farchione has moved for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana 

pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions 

Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on 

Character and Fitness has certified that Farchione has provided the necessary 

documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion 

under Rule V. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Joseph A. Farchione may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of 

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the Clerk 

of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this r..2irday of November, 2023. 

Chief Justice 

11/28/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0005
L ....401/1/4 .1

2 

Justices