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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6743

DARRAEL HOLLAND, a/k/a Robert Michael Long,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

TOM C. MARTIN, Warden, Great Plains Correctional Facility,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-96-306-3-MU)

Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrael Holland, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 10, 1997,* appealing from an order dated April 24, 1997. There is no such order in

the record. To the extent that Appellant is appealing from the

district court's judgment entered on October 28, 1996, Appellant

filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are

governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "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)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

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

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on October 28, 1996;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on May 10, 1997. Appellant's

failure to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain either an

extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court

without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal.

We therefore deny a certificate of appealability, deny Appellant's

motions to appoint counsel and for an evidentiary hearing, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT
      32.1      CERTIFICATIONS**







CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT
      TO




18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350




AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









I,
      James
      D. Calver, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly
      Report of Hooper Holmes, Inc., on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30,
      2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of Hooper Holmes,
      Inc.




Dated:  August
      15,
      2007









/s/
      James D Calver




__________________________




James
      D.
      Calver




Chief
      Executive Officer and President




This
      certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the
      liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be
      deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
      Act
      of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically
      incorporates it by reference.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Hooper Holmes, Inc. and will be retained by Hooper Holmes, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicataand collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 30 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ DARREN E. PERKINS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v. MICHAEL A. NELSON, Warden, El Dorado Correctional Facility; BUTLER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; SEDGWICK COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; DEBRA A. PETERSON, District Attorney, Respondents-Appellees. No. 00-3182 (D. Kan.) (D.Ct. No. 00-CV-3039-DES)

____________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY , KELLY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Appellant Darren Eugene Perkins, a state inmate app earing pro se , appeals the district court’s decision denying his habeas pe tition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In denying the petition, the district court found Mr. Perkins’ claims inappropriate for federal habeas corpus review beca use he challenged only the application of state law in calculating his sentenc e.
On appeal, Mr. Perkins raises the same issue addres sed by the district court. Specifically, he alleges the state trial court impr operly computed his sentence under provisions of the Kansas Sentencing Guideline s Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 21- 4701 to 4728.
“In conducting habeas review, a federal court is li mited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws or tre aties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire , 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). “Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 does not lie for errors of state law.” Richmond v. Embry , 122 F.3d 866, 870 (10th Cir. 1997) (denying consideration of petitioner’s claims based on violations of state law.).

A review of the record establishes Mr. Perkins’ cla ims of error are premised on alleged violations of state sentencing laws. Therefore, his claims are-3-

not actionable under § 2254 and do not demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right, as requir ed under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Accordingly, we deny Mr. Perkins’ request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS his appeal.
Entered by the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge
EXTENSION AGREEMENT
                      RE; LEASE DATFI) EEBRUARY . 1995
                      BENDELI. REALTY. L.L.C.. LANDLORI) and
               MAJOR ChRYSLER PlYMOUTH JEEI~ EA(il E. INC.. TENAN V

                   PREMISES:  34-2045111 Street. l..l.C.. NY

      WHEREAS, LANDLORI) and TENANT acknov. ledge that the aboxe lease H. and
between BENDIELL REAllY. L.L.C.. LANDLORD and MAJOR CI IRYSLER PLYMOI III JEEP
EAG[ 1K INC.. ] ILNANT is in full force and effect (the `lease'): and

      WI IEREAS. the Lease had a stated termination date of l)ecember 31, 1995:
and

      WI JEREAS. thereafter, by Extension Agreement dated Nlay 29. 1996. the
termination date was e\tended to December 31, 1996: and

      WhEREAS. LANDLORD and lENAN F desire'to further extend the l.ease to
December 31, 1997:

      NOW. TI IEREI:ORE. in consideration of the premises, and for other good
and x aluable consideration receipt X% hereof is herebx acknowledged. the
parties agree as follows:

      I.    The lease termination date is modified to December 31. 1997.

      2.    Except as modified herein, the lease remains in full force and
            effoct.

 Dated:     August 14. 1997

                           BRUCE BENDEI.I. and I IAROID BENI)EIL. lANDIORI)

                           BY: IsI Bruce Bendell BRUCE BENDEIl.

BY:   /s/ I Iar~.Id Bendehi

        HAROI.D BLN[)l:I.I.

MAJOR DOI)GE. INC. (formerly known as MAJOR CIIRYSIER-PLYMOLUl. INC.), FENAN F
BY: is! Bruce Bendell

        BRUCE BENI)EI.I.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION I, Thomas H. Siemers,certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First Franklin Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4 The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: May 11, 2007 /s/ Thomas H. Siemers Thomas H. Siemers    President and Chief Executive Officer  
 - 17 -
EXHIBIT 10.27



January 7, 2005



Mr. Ed Pillman

5203 Stone Arobor Court

Dallas, TX

75207



re: Consulting Services Concerning Asia Digital Media



Dear Ed:



As you know, in our letter of July 25, 2004 it was contemplated that from time to time during the time period between July 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004 (Consulting Period) we may jointly agree to retain
you for additional services and for additional fees pursuant to a mutually agreeable terms, and that under no circumstances shall such subsequent engagements, if entered into, alter the terms of the Agreement or the Waiver and Release entered into
on September 18, 2003 or extend your employment relationship beyond December 31, 2004.



The purpose of this letter (Letter Agreement) is to document the terms pursuant to which you provided such consulting services to Entrust, Inc. (Entrust), such terms effective July 1, 2004.



Briefly, we agree that you provided consulting advice to Entrust pertaining to the Asia
Digital Media joint venture activities and such other matters as directed by Entrusts CEO from time to time up until December 31, 2004. These services have been rendered at a per diem rate of $1650.00 USD. We acknowledge that you have
submitted time sheets documenting the time worked and you acknowledge that you have received full payment on account of such services.



We also agree that the following terms applied to the services provided by you during the Consulting Period:



| |  |  | all intellectual property rights created by you in connection with such services are owned by Entrust, Inc.,
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | you will execute such documents as requested by Entrust to evidence or give effect to such ownership, and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | you protected and will continue to protect all confidential information of Entrust, Inc. and its subsidiaries from disclosure to third parties unless such third parties are also
under an obligation not to disclose such information.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Assuming
that the foregoing is correct, please execute this letter in duplicate and return one original to either Jennifer or Laura for our files.



Sincerely,/s/    James D Kendry  Jay KendryVice President and Chief Governance Officer




|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|I accept this Letter Agreement as set forth herein:
|                                                   
|/s/    Ed Pillman                                  
|Ed Pillman                                         
|                                                   
|01/04/05                                           
|Date
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A2 34 7 . SCOTT J . GOLDEN v . THE STATE.

In J u n e 2 0 16

, Sco t t J

. Go l d en en t ered a n eg o ti at ed g u i l t y p l ea t o cri m i n al

at t em p t t o co m

m i t ch i l d m o l es t at i o n as a l es s er ch arg e o f ag g rav at ed ch i ld

m o les t at i o n an d was sen ten ced t o s erv e 2 5 y ears in co n fi n em en t

. On Ap ri l 1 9

, 2 0 1 9,

Go l den fi l ed a “ M o t i on t o Co rrect Scri v en o r/ Cl eri cal Erro r,” i n wh i ch h e arg u ed t h at

t h e Dep art m en t of Co rrect i o n s m i s u n d ers t oo d t h e fi nal d i s po s it i on en t ered b y t h e t ri al

co u rt as i t s s en t en ce co m

p u tat i o n rep o rt s t at ed th at h e was gu i l t y o f ag g rav at ed ch i ld

m o les t at i o n

. Th e t ri al co urt d en i ed h i s m o t i o n

, co n cl u d i n g th at t h e fi n al di s p o s i t i o n

s h eet was co rrect an d s u b m i t t ed t o t h e D ep art m en t o f Co rrect i o ns

. G o l d en fi l ed t h e

i n s t an t ap p eal , b u t we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

In o rd er t o ch al l en g e t h e s en t en ce co m p u tat i o n s h eet

, Go l d en m us t seek rel i ef

fro m t h e D ep art m en t o f Co rrect i o n s

, n o t fro m th e tri al co u rt

. “ In m at e g ri ev an ces

m u st b e fi rs t h eard an d det erm in ed wi t h i n t h e Dep art m en t o f Co rrect i o n s , an d fro m

an ad v ers e Dep art m en t d et erm i n at i o n an a c t i o n can be b ro u g h t i n t h e co u rt s

, i n t h e

n at u re o f m an dam

us o r i nju nct i o n

, ag ai n st t he di rect o r o f t h e d ep art m en t.” Hea r d v.

Ho p p er

, 2 3 3 Ga. 6 1 7

, 6 1 7 (1 ) (2 1 2 SE2 d 7 9 7) (1 9 7 5), ci t i n g Br o wn v. Ca l d wel l

, 2 3 1

Ga. 7 9 5

, 79 6 (2 0 4 SE2 d 1 3 7 ) ( 1 9 7 4 ). Acco rd i n g ly

, th i s ap p eal i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED. August 27, 2019C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/27/2019
#### Abel v. Wuesten, et al.

(Decided May 5, 1911.)

Appeal from Campbell Circuit Court

1. Waste — .Though a building may he out of repair, yet if the (tenant makes alterations that change substantially the cha ’aeter of the building and require the expenditure of $1,000.00 to restore the building to its former condition the tenant is guilty of waste.

.2 Consent of (Landlord — Under section 232G, Kentucky 'Statutes, special license in writing is necessary to authorize the tenant to commit waste. Oral consent of the landlord affords the tenant no protection. As the tenant who without a special license in writing commits waste, is liable to an action of waste, it follows that in such a ciase the lease may he forfeited on the ground of waste.

*514. RAMSEY' WASHINGTON and NELiSON & -GALLAGHER. for appellees.

OTTO "WOOS' and L. J. CRAWFORD for appellant.

Opinion op the Court, on Petition por Rehearing, by

Commissioner Wm. Rogers Clay

Withdrawing Former Opinion and Reversing.

The facts of this case are fully stated in our former opinion, which may be found in 141 Ky., 766. By that opinion the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. Thereafter the court granted a rehearing. The questions involved are again before ns for determination.

Upon reconsideration, we are of opinion that, notwithstanding the leased premises .were out of repair, the alterations which appellees made therein were so radical as substantially to change the character of the building. When these changes are considered in connection with the amount of money, $1,000, which it will he necessary to expend in order .to restore the building to its former condition, we conclude that appellees, in making the alterations, were guilty of waste.

Section 2328, of the Kentucky Statutes, is as follows:

> “If any tenant for life or years shall commit waste during his estate or term, of anything belonging to the tenement so held, without special license, in writing, so to do, he shall be subject to an action of waste, shall lose the thing wasted, and pay treble the amount at which the waste shall be assessed.”

By this section a special' license in writing is necessary in order to authorize the tenant for life or years to commit waste; and without such special license in writing he is subject to an action of waste. In this case appellant did not consent, in writing, to the waste committed by the appellees. His consent was oral, and does hot, therefore, afford appellees any protection. Notwithstanding appellant’s oral consent, they are still liable to an action of waste; and being liable to an action of waste, the lease may be forfeited on the ground of waste.

Being of the opinion that, by the alterations which appellees made in the building, they committed waste, and that appellant’s oral consent was not sufficient to justify their conduct, it follows-.that appellant is entitled to recover the premises in question.

*515Wherefore, our former opinion is withdrawn and the judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment in conformity with this opinion.
No. 3,192.

#### MARY MURPHY et al., Respondents, *v.*ANNA E. NETT, Special Administratrix, Appellant.

*Appeal from District Court, Lewis and Clark County.*

Decided May 29, 1912.

*Messrs. Galen & Mettler,*for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Respondents’ motion to dismiss tbe appeal herein, this day submitted, is after due consideration by tbe court granted, and tbe appeal is accordingly dismissed at tbe cost of tbe appellant. (Motion to reinstate denied June 18, 1912.)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-38867, 333-53557 and 333-104622 on Form S-8 of our reports, which included
an explanatory paragraph related to the company's adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standard No. 123R, Accounting for Stock Based Compensation,
dated February 23, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
consolidated financial statement schedule of Renaissance Learning, Inc. and
management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Renaissance Learning,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

March 7, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2200 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2200

       To suspend temporarily the duty on N-Cyclopropyl-N'-(1,1-
       dimethylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2000

 Mr. Moynihan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on N-Cyclopropyl-N'-(1,1-
       dimethylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON N-CYCLOPROPYL-N'-(1,1-
              DIMETHYLETHYL)-6-(METHYLTHIO)-1,3,5-TRIAZINE-2,4-DIAMINE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.32.00     N-Cyclopropyl-N- Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     (1,1-                                                                   31/2003          ''
                     dimethylethyl)-                                                                           .
                     6-(methylthio)-
                     1,3,5-triazine-
                     2,4-diamine
                     (CAS No. 28159-
                     98-0) (provided
                     for in
                     subheading
                     2933.69.60)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```