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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7946

MICHAEL EDWARD MILLS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH M. BROOKS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-01-461)

Submitted: July 26, 2002 Decided: August 26, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Edward Mills, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Edward Mills appeals a district court’s order denying

him leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in No. 01-7670.

The denial of in forma pauperis status is immediately appealable.

Roberts v. United States Dist. Court, 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950).

Because Mills did in fact proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in

No. 01-7670, we dismiss this appeal as moot. We further deny leave

to proceed on appeal in formal pauperis. 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
#### STATE ex rel. Anthony DIXON v. N. Burl CAIN.

No. 2002-KH-2225.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Dixon, Anthony;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 291-742; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-1253.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.
**Exhibit 12.1**

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

I, Stefano De Angelis, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of TIM Participações S.A.;

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

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:

a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)    Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: April 5, 2018

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7163

DONALD ADDISON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

L. T. ELMORE, Classification; SERGEANT

GERAGHTY, Classification; DAVID P. CURRO,

Parole Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-01-443-A)

Submitted: October 3, 2001 Decided: October 15, 2001

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Addison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.

P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Addison seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Addison’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,

361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April

18, 2001. Addison’s notice of appeal was filed on July 16, 2001.*

Because Addison failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss

the appeal. 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PETER D. MELCHIORRE,

Petitioner

v.

422 DEVELOPMENT, INC., 

PHOENIXVILLE TOWN CENTER, LP, 

LONGVIEW DEVELOPMENT, LP, GIANT 

LANDLORD, LP, SEARS ROEBUCK & 

CO., K MART CORPORATION, GIANT 

FOOD STORES, INC., HARDWARE 

LANDLORD GP, LLC AND 

PHOENIXVILLE BOROUGH,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 849 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                            ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
theglobe.com, inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-67217) on Form S-8 of  theglobe.com,  inc. of our report dated February
20,  1999,  relating  to the  balance  sheets of  theglobe.com,  inc. as of
December  31, 1998 and 1997,  and the  related  statements  of  operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1998, and related schedule,  which report appears
in the December 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K of theglobe.com, inc.


                                                   (signed) KPMG LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 1999
## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before TOZZI, CAMPANELLA, and CELTNIEKS Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Private (E-2) EVAN M. EVERETT United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20140865

U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence and Fort Huachuca Timothy P. Hayes, Jr ., Military Judge Colonel Joseph A. Keeler , Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Charles D. Lozano, JA; Major Christopher D. Coleman, JA; Captain J. Da vid Hammond, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham , JA; Major John K. Choike, JA; Captain Robyn M. Chatwood , JA (on brief).

28 April 2016

---------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to hi s pleas, of one specification of wrongful appropriation and one specification of larceny in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 921 (2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct di scharge and confinem ent for ten months. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, the convening authority approved the findings and only so much of the sentence as provide s for a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for seven

months.

This case is before us for review pursuant to Ar ticle 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises one assignment of erro r to this court that meri ts discussion and relief.

The military judge found ap pellant guilty of Specification 2 of The Charge, larceny of funds with a value of more than $500, the property of Bank of America, N.A. [hereinafter Bank of America], betw een on or about 27 Ju ne 2014 and on orEVERETT—ARMY 20140865

2 about 8 July 2014. C onsistent with the error assigned by appellant, our examination

of the record finds ev idence to support the allegation that ap pellant stole funds from Bank of America, but the value of the funds stolen du ring the transaction at issue was less than $500. The gover nment concedes this point and agrees with appellant that Specification 2 of The Charge should be amended to reflect a value of less than $500. We provide relief in our decretal paragraph.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of the entire record, th e court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of Sp ecification 2 of The Ch arge as finds that:

[Appellant], U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Huachuca, Arizona, between on or abou t 27 June 2014 and on or about 8 July 2014, st eal funds, of a value of less than $500, the property of Ba nk of America, N.A.

The remaining findings of guilty are AFFIRMED.

Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted, the entire record, and in accordance with the principles of United States v. Winckelmann , 73 M.J. 11, 15- 16 (C.A.A.F. 2013), the sentence as approved by the convening authority is AFFIRMED. All rights, priv ileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of the findings set aside by this decision, are

ordered restored.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT:
STATE of North Carolina v. George Lee NOBLES

No. 34PA14-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 05, 2018

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Nobles, George Lee.

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

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 7th of August 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of August 2018 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15 (g)(2).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research (DMR) #1203.                    

*Dates & Times:*

October 18, 2005; 7:45 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. (open 7:45 - 12:30, 1:30 - 5).

October 19, 2005; 8 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. (closed).

*Place:*                         University of Puerto Rico at Humacao, Humacao, Puerto Rico.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Part open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Maija M. Kukla, Program Director, Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 292-4940.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning progress of the Partnership for Research and Education in Materials.                    

*Agenda:*

October 18, 2005—Open for Directors overview of the Partnership for Research and Education in Materials.

October 18 & 19, 2005—Closed to review and evaluate progress of the Partnership for Research and Education in Materials.

*Reason for Closing:*                         The work being reviewed may include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: September 27, 2005.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-19934  Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
STATE v. Franchot Lane CHRISTMAS

252P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018

Franchot Lane Christmas, for Christmas, Franchot Lane.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Womble, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of August 2018 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2018."
Amy S. GRISSOM v. David I. COHEN

No. 40P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Jonathan D. Feit, Preston O. Odom, III, Attorneys at Law, Charlotte, for Grissom, Amy S.

Tom J. Bush, Charlotte, Kevin L. Miller, H. Stephen Robinson, Mary Craven Adams, Winston-Salem, Attorneys at Law, for Cohen, David I.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of November 2018 by Plaintiff 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 30th of January 2019."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 22 (Thursday, February 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2044]



[[Page 5685]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[Funding Opportunity Number: CE05-018]


Cooperative Agreement Program for the National Academic Centers 
of Excellence on Youth Violence Prevention; Notice of Availability of 
Funds-Amendment

    A notice announcing the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2005 funds 
for cooperative agreements to to establish up to ten National Academic 
Centers of Excellence (ACE) on Youth Violence Prevention, serving as 
national models for the prevention of youth violence, was published in 
the Federal Register on November 22, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 224, pages 
67915-67930.
    The notice is amended as follows:
    On page 67917, Column 3, Section IV.1. Address to Request 
application Package, delete the first sentence and replace with ``To 
apply for this funding opportunity, use application form PHS 398 (OMB 
number 0925-0001 rev.
9/2004).

    Dated: January 28, 2005.
William P. Nichols,
Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-2044 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4781 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the maximum 

corporate rate of tax to 22 percent. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2010 

Mr. TIAHRT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 

the maximum corporate rate of tax to 22 percent. 

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 ‘‘Keeping American 

5 Businesses Competitive Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN CORPORATE MARGINAL INCOME 

7 TAX RATES. 

8 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Paragraph (1) of section 11(b) 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4781 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara2 graph (A), 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘25 percent’’ in subparagraph 

4 (B) and inserting ‘‘22 percent’’, 

5 (3) by striking ‘‘but does not exceed $75,000,’’ 

6 in subparagraph (B) and inserting a period, 

7 (4) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D), and 

8 (5) by striking the last 2 sentences. 

9 (b) PERSONAL SERVICE CORPORATIONS.—Para10 graph (2) of section 11(b) of such Code is amended by 

11 striking ‘‘35 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘22 percent’’. 

12 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Paragraphs (1) 

13 and (2) of section 1445(e) of such Code are each amended 

14 by striking ‘‘35 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘22 percent’’. 

15 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

17 December 31, 2009, except that the amendments made 

18 by subsection (c) shall take effect on the date of the enact19 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40283 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN ACOSTA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-709-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan AcostaTorres raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not render 21 U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional on its face. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
        32.1
  **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,**
  **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
        2002**
  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 filing of the Quarterly
        Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) by
        Fuda Faucet Works, Inc (the “Registrant”), Dengyong Jin, chief executive
        officer, and Donghai Yu, chief financial officer, hereby certify
        that:
  1.  To
        the
        best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
        Section
        13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.  To
        the
        best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of
        the Registrant.
  Dated:
        August 14, 2008
   By: /s/
        Dengyong Jin
 Dengyong
        Jin
 Chief
        Executive Officer
  By: /s/
        Donghai Yu
 Donghai
        Yu
 Chief
        Financial Officer