alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL A PPE ALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-82,034-01

EX P ARTE RONALD J. EUBANK S, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W92-67690-N( A) IN THE 195TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Cr i m i n al P ro cedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated sexual assault and sentenc ed to ten y ear s’ imprisonment. The Eleventh Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Eubanks v. State , No. 11-93-00236- CR (Tex. App.—Eastlan d J u n e 16, 1994) (not desig nated f

or publication). Applicant contends, among other things, that had scientific evidenc e, which was unavailable at the time of his trial and would now be admissible, been prese nted at his trial, on the preponde ranc e2

of the evidenc e he would not have been convicted. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.073. We order that t h i s application be filed and set for submissi on to deter mine whether Applicant is entitled to relief under Article 11.073. The parties sha ll brief this issue. I t appea rs that Applicant is repr esente d by counsel. I f that is not corr ect, the trial court shall deter mine whether Applicant is indig ent. I f Applica nt is indi g ent and de sires to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art 26.04. The trial court shall send to this Court, within 60 day s of the date of t h i s o rd er , a

s up p l em en t al transcr ipt containing : a confirmation that Applicant is repr esente d by counsel; the order appointing counsel; or a statement that Applicant is not indige nt. All briefs shall be filed with this Court wit hin 90 day s of the date of this order. Filed: May

18, 2016 Do not publish
Case 1:06-cv-14989-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Stephen Anthony HENRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Cheryl K. PLILER, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-56589.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 11, 2005.

Stephen Anthony Henry, Soledad, CA, pro se.

David C. Cook, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Stephen Anthony Henry appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the dismissal of a § 2254 petition, *see Lott v. Mueller,*304 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Appellant contends that the district court erred in failing to warn him that he *206could amend his mixed habeas petition and request the court to hold it in abeyance while he attempted to exhaust his final claim. However, that contention is foreclosed by *Pliler v. Ford,*542 U.S. 225, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2447, 159 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004).

Appellant raises an actual innocence claim as an uncertified issue. We construe the claim as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and grant it. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-1 (e). To the extent such relief may be available when a § 2254 petition is barred by the statute of limitations, *see Majoy v. Roe,*296 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2002), he fails to present sufficient evidence to show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. *See Sistrunk v. Armenakis,*292 F.3d 669, 673 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7755

GEORGE WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

MICHAEL SHEEDY, Warden; JANIE W. ROUSE; JAMES

BLACKWELL, Major; KENNETH SHARP, Lieutenant;

NURSE HILL,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-03-1439)

Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Norma Anne Turner Jett, EARLY &

NESS, Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

George Williams appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v.

Sheedy, No. CA-03-1439 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 3, 2003 & entered Oct. 7,

2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE v. MITCHELL

No. 250 PC.

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 607.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 July 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 15 July 1980.
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 11 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 11 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Al A. GonsoulinAl A. GonsoulinChief Executive Officer
Case 1:06-cv-14987-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15034-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         303,160
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  715,721
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,179
<INVENTORY>                                    667,821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,414,601
<PP&E>                                       1,924,632
<DEPRECIATION>                                 883,548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,555,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          898,753
<BONDS>                                        427,944
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,425
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,127,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,555,757
<SALES>                                      4,513,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        1,741,541
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,561,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             74,074
<DISCONTINUED>                             (1,021,766)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (947,692)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.07)


</TABLE>
#### CLUB, INC. v. LAWRENCE

No. 218 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 547.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied I September 1976.
Case 1:06-cv-15006-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 141 

To prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 16, 2019 

Mrs. ERNST (for herself, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. RISCH, Mr. COTTON, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. 

SASSE, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. RUBIO, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. MORAN, Mr. 

KENNEDY, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ENZI, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. ROMNEY, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. 

DAINES, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. 

CRAMER, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood 

Federation of America. 

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 ‘‘Protect Funding for 

5 Women’s Health Care Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds as follows: 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 141 IS

1 (1) State and county health departments, com2 munity health centers, hospitals, physicians offices, 

3 and other entities currently provide, and will con4 tinue to provide, health services to women. Such 

5 health services include relevant diagnostic laboratory 

6 and radiology services, well-child care, prenatal and 

7 postpartum care, immunization, family planning 

8 services including contraception, sexually trans9 mitted disease testing, cervical and breast cancer 

10 screenings, and referrals. 

11 (2) Many such entities provide services to all 

12 persons, regardless of the person’s ability to pay, 

13 and provide services in medically underserved areas 

14 and to medically underserved populations. 

15 (3) All funds no longer available to Planned 

16 Parenthood will continue to be made available to 

17 other eligible entities to provide women’s health care 

18 services. 

19 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION. 

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi21 sion of law, no Federal funds may be made available to 

22 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or to any of 

23 its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics. 

24 (b) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

25 shall be construed to— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 141 IS

1 (1) affect any limitation contained in an appro2 priations Act relating to abortion; or 

3 (2) reduce overall Federal funding available in 

4 support of women’s health. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.2


                            CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
        FILED TO CORRECT A CERTAIN ERROR IN THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF
                      INCORPORATION OF HANOVER DIRECT, INC.
          FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF DELAWARE ON
                                OCTOBER 31, 1996


         HANOVER DIRECT, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

                  DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

                  1.       The name of the corporation is Hanover Direct, Inc.

                  2.       That a Restated Certificate of Incorporation was
                           filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on
                           October 31, 1996 and that said Restated Certificate
                           requires corrections as permitted by Section 103 of
                           the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

                  3.       The inaccuracy or defect of said Restated Certificate
                           to be corrected is as follows: The total number of
                           shares of stock authorized and the number of shares
                           designated as common stock are inaccurate.


                  4.       Article Fourth of the Restated Certificate is
                           corrected to read as follows:

                           Line two shall be deleted in its entirety and
                           replaced with "... Corporation shall have the
                           authority to issue is 243,172,403 shares, of which
                           40,000 shares ..."

                           Line seven shall be deleted in its entirety and
                           replaced with "... stock, par value $0.01 per share
                           (the "Additional Preferred Stock"), 225,000,000
                           shares ..."


                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said HANOVER DIRECT, INC. has caused this
certificate to be signed by Edward J. O'Brien, its Senior Vice President,
Treasurer and Secretary, this 27th day of June, 1997.


                                           HANOVER DIRECT, INC.


                                           By:  /s/ Edward J. O'Brien
                                                Edward J. O'Brien
                                                Senior Vice President, Treasurer
                                                and Secretary
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erik BOWKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4086.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 6, 2005.

Edward F. Feran, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jay Milano, Milano & Co., Rocky River, OH, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MARTIN and CLAY, Circuit Judges; MILLS, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

On June 11, 2004, this Court issued an opinion affirming Defendant Erik Bowker’s convictions and sentence. *United States v. Bowker,*372 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2004). On February 28, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Bowker’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of this Court, and remanded to this Court for further consideration in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *Bowker v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1420, 161 L.Ed.2d 181 (2005). For the reasons that follow, we reinstate our opinion of June 11, 2004, with the exception of Part IX, and remand to the district court for resentencing in accordance with *Booker.*

After a jury convicted Bowker of one count of interstate stalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1); one count of cyberstalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2); one count of theft of mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708; and one count of telephone harassment, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(C), the district court determined that the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, given Bowker’s criminal history and an offense level of 19, was between 57 and 71 months. After making independent findings of fact, the *702district court granted the government’s motion for a three level upward departure in Bowker’s offense level based on Guidelines § 5K2.3 (extreme psychological injury to the victim), and imposed a 96 month sentence.

Bowker’s sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment because the 96 month term exceeds the maximum sentence that the Guidelines authorized based solely on the facts found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. *Booker,*125 S.Ct. at 756. Accordingly, Bowker’s sentence must be vacated. On remand, the district court must impose a reasonable sentence within the applicable statutory máximums for the crimes of conviction. Although the district court will not be bound by the Guidelines, the court nonetheless must “take account of the Guidelines together with other sentencing goals.” *Id.*at 764 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (Supp.2004)). Because the decision in *Booker*does not implicate any other issues concerning Bowker’s conviction or sentence, we hereby reinstate the Court’s opinion of June 11, 2004, with the exception of Part IX (Upward Departure for Extreme Psychological Harm to the Victim).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
#### STATE v. McADOO

No. 81 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 364.

Petition by defendants Jones and Kirkpatrick for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1978.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22303]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

[F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 6-05]


Sunshine Act; Meeting

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters 
specified, as follows:

Date and Time:  Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Subject Matter:  Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against 
Albania.

Status: Open.
    All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance 
notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: 
Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 
Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-
6988.

Mauricio J. Tamargo,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 05-22303 Filed 11-3-05; 5:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-P
Case 1:06-cv-14939-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Principal Financial Officer**
I, Jeffrey D. Gash, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2004 of Jaco Electronics, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 

 

 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 14, 2004         /s/ Jeffrey D. Gash   Jeffrey D. Gash   Executive Vice President, Finance
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140813

PATRICK J. DEVLIN, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 140813 COA: 294131 Ingham CC: 08-000918-AA CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 10, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO




18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,




AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Katy Industries, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony T. Castor III,
      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 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/
      Anthony T. Castor III


Anthony
      T. Castor III


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      9,
      2006











The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section
      18 of
      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company whether made before
      or
      after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
      such
      filing. A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the
      Company and will
      be retained by the
      Company and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.