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

No. 20
- 7051

RICKY DEAN NORMAN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. ( 5:20

- cv - 00021

- MR )

Submitted : December 17, 2020 Decided: December 22, 2020

Before THACKER, HARRIS, an d QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ricky Dean Norman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ricky D ean Norman seeks to appeal the distric t court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petition s are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from
latest of four commencement dates e numerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the deni al of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez , 565 U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Norman’s informal brief does not challenge the dispositive timeliness determination by the district court , he has forfeited appellate review. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). 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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 10222 and # 10223]
 AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1609-DR), dated October 24, 2005. *Incident:*
                         Hurricane Wilma. *Incident Period:*
                         October 23, 2005 and continuing. *Effective Date:*
                         October 24, 2005. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         December 23, 2005. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         July 24, 2006.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on October 24, 2005, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Collier, Lee, and Monroe. Contiguous Counties: Florida: Broward, Charlotte, Glades, Hendry, and Miami-Dade. The Interest Rates are: PercentHomeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.375Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.687Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
6.557Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere
4.750Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 102228 and for economic injury is 102230. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 05-21956 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Interstate Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

August 3, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          43,834
<SECURITIES>                                    48,468
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,301
<PP&E>                                       1,041,623   
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,072,840   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,981
<BONDS>                                        360,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    231,683
<COMMON>                                        33,876
<OTHER-SE>                                     430,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,072,840
<SALES>                                        145,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               158,411
<CGS>                                           85,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,537
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,537
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,537
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>
# L_2007310EN.01001001.xml

| 28.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 310/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 310/10

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1391/2007

of 27 November 2007

laying down special measures concerning the application of Regulation (EC) No 1267/2007 in the pigmeat sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3444/90 of 27 November 1990 laying down detailed rules for granting private storage aid for pigmeat (1), and in particular Article 11(b) thereof,

Whereas:

An examination of the situation has indicated a risk that there will be an excessively large number of applications for the private storage aid scheme introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1267/2007 (2). Therefore, it is necessary to suspend application of the Regulation and reject the applications in question,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Application of Regulation (EC) No 1267/2007 is hereby suspended for the period 28 November to 4 December 2007.

2.   Applications submitted from 27 November 2007, for which acceptance decisions would have had to be taken during that period, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 November 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 November 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 333, 30.11.1990, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2006 (OJ L 365, 21.12.2006, p. 52).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 283, 27.10.2007, p. 53.

2

---
#### ROSS CLARENCE AYERS v. B. WALTON BROWN, Administrator of the Estate of ARCHIE MERRELL CREEF, JR., Deceased

No. 7419SC1088

(Filed 7 May 1975)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Seay, Judge.*Judgment entered 1 August 1974 in Superior Court, Randolph County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 March 1975.

This is one of four civil actions arising out of the same automobile accident. Over plaintiff’s objection, the cases were consolidated for trial. The jury answered the issue of negligence in plaintiff’s favor but answered the issue of contributory negligence against plaintiff. From judgment on the verdict, plaintiff appealed.

*Ottway Burton, for plaintiff appellant.*

*Smith & Casper, by Archie L. Smith, for defendant' appellee.*

MARTIN, Judge.

This case presents no question not answered by this Court in *Wood v. Brown, Administrator,*25 N.C. App. 241, 212 S.E. 2d 690 (filed 2 April 1975). It would serve no useful purpose to discuss each assignment of error. On authority of *Wood v. Brown, supra,*all assignments of error are overruled.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Vaughn' concur.
EXHIBIT 32



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
Annual Report of the WMS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian R. Gamache, Chief Executive
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, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Brian R. Gamache   
|Brian R. Gamache       
|Chief Executive Officer
|September 9, 2005      



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 Annual Report of the WMS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott D. Schweinfurth, 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, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Scott D. Schweinfurth
|Scott D. Schweinfurth    
|Chief Financial Officer  
|September 9, 2005
Exhibit 12
           INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

            Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                  (unaudited)

                                 (in thousands)



                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED   NINE MONTHS ENDED 
                                       Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,  Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,
                                          1997       1996      1997       1996
Earnings before income taxes           $15,976    $12,338   $25,317    $16,963
Plus: Fixed charges (1)                  6,495      6,810    21,303     20,291
Less: Capitalized interest                   -         (7)       (9)       (26)

Earnings available to cover
  fixed charges                        $22,471    $19,141   $46,611    $37,228

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges        3.46       2.81      2.19       1.83

(1) Fixed charges consisted of the following:

                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED   NINE MONTHS ENDED 
                                       Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,  Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,
                                          1997       1996      1997       1996
Interest expense, gross                $ 4,162    $ 4,438   $14,120    $13,375
Rentals (Interest factor)                2,333      2,372     7,183      6,916
  Total fixed charges                  $ 6,495    $ 6,810   $21,303    $20,291
#### ..., a Minor, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7867

October 30, 1975

541 P.2d 911

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Thomas L. Leen,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Dan M. Seaton,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant, charged with rape, was found guilty of attempted rape after a contested hearing before a juvenile referee.

The juvenile judge adopted the finding and adjudicated appellant a delinquent; and, in this appeal the only contention urges there was insufficient evidence to sustain the adjudication. We reject the contention.

The prosecutrix, appellant’s schoolmate, testified: (1) appellant grabbed her purse and pulled her behind a building at the high school they attended; (2) she was forced to kiss and hug appellant who continually beat her about the head and face, at the same time poking her in the chest with a sharp stick; (3) appellant forced her to have intercourse; and, (4) he threatened to severely beat her if she reported the incident. Additionally, the victim immediately reported the incident to school authorities; and, subsequently, to her mother. Testimony of the mother also showed the victim (1) had a bruise on her chest and, (2) suffered from “facial swelling.”

Cross-examination raised some question as to whether or not penetration was actually achieved; however, there is ample evidence to show it was attempted.

*681In our view, the recited circumstances support the adjudication. See Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 529 P.2d 206 (1974), where we ruled that when a judgment is supported by substantial evidence, as in this case, it will neither be disturbed nor set aside.

Affirmed.
# L_2007227EN.01002701.xml

| 31.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 227/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 227/27

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1017/2007

of 30 August 2007

entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Arancia del Gargano (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the application by Italy to register the designation ‘Arancia del Gargano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the application by Italy to register the designation ‘Arancia del Gargano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, this designation should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, this designation should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The designation contained in the Annex to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 August 2007.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 952/2007 (OJ L 210, 10.8.2007, p. 26).

1

(2)  
  OJ C 258, 26.10.2006, p. 13.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty

Class 1.6. —   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY

Arancia del Gargano (PGI)

---
#### John Clonan *vs.*Patrick H. Thornton.

March 27, 1875.

Verdict justified by Evidence. — The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, and several unimportant exceptions considered, and the order refusing a new trial affirmed.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the court of common pleas for Ramsey county, Hall, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The second instruction given at defendant’s request, and referred to in the opinion, was, in effect, that partner*381ships may be created between persons, without the word ‘ ‘ partnership’ ’ being mentioned, and may be wholly implied from other acts and transactions; and that if the grading and work in question were begun and prosecuted as the joint enterprise of plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff can not recover in this action.

*JE. G. Palmer*and *W. L. Kelly,*for appellant. '

*Mead & Thompson,*for respondent.

Gtlkillan, C. J.

Suit for work and labor, use of tools and money paid out for defendant, in grading on Fort street in St. Paul. Defence, that in doing the grading plaintiff and defendant were co-partners, and that the work and labor, and use of tools, and money paid out, were for the partnership, and various counterclaims, none of them, however, arising from the grading of Fort street.

On the trial, plaintiff moved that defendant be compelled to elect whether he would rely on the partnership pleaded in the answer, or upon the counterclaims. As the answer does not allege the partnership to extend to the matters out of rvhich the counterclaims are alleged to have arisen, this motion was properly denied.

There was sufficient evidence of the partnership alleged, and of the counterclaims, for the jury to pass upon. Joseph Thornton, a witness for defendant, gave evidence tending to show the partnership between plaintiff and defendant, and stated that he and defendant formed a partnership, July 21, 1873, which was after the accruing of the alleged counterclaims. On cross-examination, the plaintiff asked him, “Were you an equal partner?” “When you entered into such partnership, did you, or not, purchase an interest in the assets of his store?” “The goods that were delivered to purchasers after July 21, 1873, were owned in part by you, were they not?” “If Kelly was paid out of the store, after July 21, 1873, did not Thornton Bros, pay him?” which questions were objected to and excluded. None of them were properly cross-examination, and none of them would tend to prove any fact covered by the reply, as *382that does not allege the joint ownership of the counterclaims by defendant with any other person.

The court refused to charge, as requested by plaintiff, “that if the jury find that plaintiff had paid for all the goods and money had of defendant by him, no recovery can be had by defendant on or for any of his said counterclaims.” The refusal Avas correct, because, 1. The reply does not allege payment, and it is not, so far as we can see, proved. 2. There were counterclaims other than for goods or money.

The charge of the court on the defendant’s second request was correct.

The order denying a new trial is affirmed.