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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6936

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO DEMETRIUS WILLIAMS, a/k/a Little Wayne, a/k/a Black, a/k/a 

Antonio Williams,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00014-MFU-RSB-3; 

5:15-cv-80827-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 27, 2017

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Demetrius Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Harrisonburg, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Demetrius Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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
#### Minnie Hogan, Respondent, v. Daniel O’Brian, as Administrator, etc., of Stella O’Brian, Deceased, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.
March 10, 1997

Corporate Trust Department
State Street Bank and Trust Company
2 International Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02110

         CS First Boston Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
                                Series 1995-AEW1


                             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


Pursuant to the requirements of that certain Pooling & Servicing Agreement
governing the referenced Trust, it is hereby certified that (i) the undersigned
has completed a review of the Servicer's performance of its obligations under
the PSA for the current calendar year; (ii) to the best of the undersigned's 
knowledge, on the basis of that review the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the PSA throughout such period (iii) to the best of the
undersigned's knowledge, the sub-servicer, if any, has fulfilled its obligations
under its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects; and (iv) no notice
has been received from any governmental agency or body which would indicate a 
challenge or question as to the status of the Trust's qualification as a REMIC
under the Code.

/s/ Charles J. Sipple       3-11-97
Charles J. Sipple             Date
Senior Vice President



/s/ Paula J. Mickelson      3-11-97
Paula J. Mickelson            Date
Assistant Secretary


cc:  Allen Baum, Christina Navasimhan & Warren Ashenmil
     CS First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
     55 East 52nd Street
     New York, NY  10055



<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S 10-QSB FOR THE YEAR TO DATE AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,276,308
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,562,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,640,091
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,749,057
<PP&E>                                         684,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,156,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,758,027
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       223,078
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,115,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,156,705
<SALES>                                      5,050,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,050,823
<CGS>                                        3,074,612
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,074,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,097,699
<INCOME-TAX>                                   407,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            690,699
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   690,699
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
#### Wallace v. Commonwealth.

(Decided January 12, 1915.)

Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court.

1. Burglary — Prosecutions—Instructions.—The instructions upon a prosecution for house breaking must require proof of an asportation.

2. Burglary — Prosecution—Sufficiency of Evidence. — Where there is no evidence to show how the entrance was effected or that it was effected, there can he no conviction of the offense of house breaking.

LOUIS I. IGLEHEART for appellant.

JAMES GARNETT, Attorney General, and ROBERT T. CALDWELL, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

OpinioN op the Court by

Judge Hannah

Reversing.

Richard Wallace was convicted under an indictment charging him with the statutory offense of housebreaking.

He appeals, contending that the offense charged in the indictment was not sufficiently proven, and that the court erred in instructing the jury.

1. In instructing the jury the court authorized a conviction without requiring proof of the execution of the felonious intent to steal, by the actual stealing and carrying away of property of value from the dwelling house in question.

*86It was held in Drake v. Commonwealth, 31 R., 1286, 104 S. W., 1000, that the jury must be instructed that before they can convict for house-breaking they must also believe from the evidence beyond .a reasonable doubt that the defendant took, stole and carried away the articles or some of the articles designated.

The instruction was erroneous for failure to require proof of an asportation.

2. It is also insisted by appellant that the breaking was not sufficiently proven, and that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, based upon that ground.

The prosecuting witness stated that “the house must have been broken into between Sunday and "Wednesday;” that she always closed up the house when she left it; that it was not left open at any time during the week before the discovery of the absence of the missing articles, so far as she knew; and, in answer to the question, “You don’t know how the parties entered the house, that got those things, and'have no idea about it?” she answered, “None in the world.”

In Little v. Commonwealth, 151 Ky., 520, a prosecution for house-breaking, there was no evidence whatever to show how the entrance was effected, and. because of this failure of proof, the court reversed a judgment of conviction. Upon the authority of the Little case, the defendant in the case at bar was entitled to a directed verdict.

While, under a proper indictment, the defendant might have been convicted of grand or petty larceny, such conviction may not be had upon an indictment charging him with the offense of house-breaking. Farris v. Commonwealth, 90 Ky., 637. Thomas v. Commonwealth, 150 Ky., 374.

For the errors indicated, the judgment of conviction is reversed. .
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11843]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


National Institute of Standards and Technology Performance Review 
Board Membership

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology Performance 
Review Board (NIST PRB) reviews performance appraisals, agreements, and 
recommended actions pertaining to employees in the Senior Executive 
Service and ST-3104 employees. The Board makes recommendations to the 
appropriate appointing authority concerning such matters so as to 
ensure the fair and equitable treatment of these individuals.
    This notice lists the membership of the NIST PRB and supersedes the 
list published in Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 164, pages 49646-49647, 
on August 22, 2008:

Michael Culpepper (C), Chief Human Capital Officer, National Institute 
of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Appointment Expires: 
12/31/12.
Robert Dimeo (C), Deputy Director, NIST Center for Neutron Research, 
National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. 
Appointment Expires: 12/31/12.
Stella Fiotes (C), (Alternate) Chief Facilities Management Officer, 
National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. 
Appointment Expires: 12/31/12.
Ellen Herbst (C), Senior Advisor for Policy and Program Integration, 
Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 
20230. Appointment Expires: 12/31/2012.
Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder (C), (Alternate) Director, Building and Fire 
Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards & Technology, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Appointment Expires: 12/31/10.

    Dated: May 11, 2010.
Katharine Gebbie,
 Director, Physics Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2010-11843 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 94 (Monday, May 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11668]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S.

[Public Notice 2010-0010]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request.

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

    Form Title: Application for Letter of Credit Insurance Policy.

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    The Application for Letter of Credit Insurance Policy will be used 
by entities involved in the export of US goods and services.
    Our customers will be able to submit this form on paper or 
electronically. The information collected will provide information 
needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction 
requests submitted to the Export Import Bank under its long term 
guarantee and direct loan programs.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before July 16, 2010 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export Import Bank 
of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Titles and Form Number: EIB 92-34 Application for Letter of Credit 
Insurance Policy.
    OMB Number: 3048-0009.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The information collected will provide information 
needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction 
requests submitted to the Export Import Bank under its long term 
guarantee and direct loan programs.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-11668 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 8.1

                                  Subsidiaries

               Name                                Jurisdiction of Incorporation
-----------------------------------------------    -----------------------------
Quilmes International (Bermuda) Ltd.               Bermuda
Cerveceria y Malteria Quilmes S.A.                 Argentina
Eco de los Andes S.A.                              Argentina
Hecaton S.A.                                       Argentina
Cerveceria Paraguaya S.A.                          Paraguay
Colosas S.A.                                       Paraguay
Noitca Ltd.                                        British Virgin Islands
Landgon Investments Inc.                           Delaware, USA
Melville Investments Inc.                          Delaware, USA
Sociedad de Inversiones y Comercio Vienher S.A.    Panama
Compania Salus S.A.                                Uruguay
Hielos Merlo S.A.                                  Argentina
Coroplas S.A.                                      Argentina
Quilmes Do Brasil Ltda.                            Brazil
Publicidad Relator S.A.                            Argentina
Embotelladora del Interior S.A.                    Argentina
Etel S.A.I.C. y F.                                 Argentina
Inversiones Bemberg Chile Ltda.                    Chile
Cerveceria Chile S.A.                              Chile
Fabrica Paraguaya de Vidrios S.A.                  Paraguay
Inversiones Cerveceras S.A.                        Panama
Cerveceria Taquina S.A.                            Bolivia
Cerveceria Boliviana Nacional S.A.                 Bolivia
Seven Up Consesiones S.A.I. y C.                   Argentina
Embotelladora Perla de Norte S.A.I.C.I.A. y F.     Argentina
Ebotelladora del Uruguay S.A.                      Uruguay
Aydecar S.A.                                       Argentina
Embotelladora 9 de Julio S.A.I.C.I. y F.           Argentina
Quilmes Industrial S.A.                            Argentina
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          41,818
<SECURITIES>                                    24,012
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,681
<INVENTORY>                                     45,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               205,462
<PP&E>                                          73,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 296,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,996
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       251,883
<OTHER-SE>                                    (64,649)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   296,111
<SALES>                                        360,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               360,523
<CGS>                                          287,872
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  287,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               148,442
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (73,611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,324)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (63,287)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.81)


</TABLE>
Case 37 — PETITION ORDINARY

November 17.

#### Brashears v. Frazier.

APPEAR PROM LETCHER CIRCUIT COURT.

1. Circuit Clerks — Sufficiency op Certificate to Transcript.— The certificate of a circuit clerk to a transcript filed in this court on appeal, that “the foregoing is a true copy in substance of the records of this office” in a particular action,' is insufficient.

2. Practice in Court op Appeals. — The presumption- is, where ¡there 'is no bill of exceptions or evidence, that a peremptory instruction given by the lower court was proper.

KNOTT *&*EDELEN ant> WILLIAM J. HENDRICK for appellant.

1.If thei certificate of the clerk is thought to be technically insufficient, the motion to dismiss" should be overruled and appellant given leave to have the clerk correct the certificate.

D. D. FIELDS and DISHMAN & HAYS por appellee.

1. The certificate of the clerk to the transcript does' not come within the requirements of the Civil Code, secs. 737-738-739.

2. There being no hill of exceptions in the record, the only question for thte court to determine is as to the sufficiency of the pleadings.

3. Under the provisions of the General Statutes, chap. 38, art. IS, *238execution sales, if fraudulent, may be set aside either on. motion or by petition in equity; appellant has not sought to avail himself of either of these remedies.

JOHN L. SCOTT & SON on same side.

1. In the absence of a bill of exceptions this court must presume that there was evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury, and the same rule prevails where the lower court gives peremptory instruction.

JUDGE GUFFY

delivered the opinion op the court.

The appellee *insists*that this appeal should be dismissed on account of the failure of -the clerk to properly authenticate the transcript filed, and it is further insisted that no bill of exceptions has been filed, hence the law presumes that the peremptory instruction given to the jury was proper, and that the pleadings support the verdict.

The certificate of the clerk is as follows;

“I, John A. Craft, clerk of the Letcher Circuit Court, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy in substance of the records of this office in the action of J. H. Frazier v. Robt. O. Brashears. Given under my hand, clerk of said court, this May 5, 1894. .JOHN A. CRAFT,

Clerk Letcher Circuit Court.”

The clerk being only a ministerial officer, it is his duty to correctly copy the records of the court and certify to the same as being a correct copy. He can not properly determine as to the substance of the records, but must copy same as made, and as they appear in the record in order to properly present the transcript for appeal. In addition to this there seems to be no bill of exceptions or evidence, hence the presumption of law is that the peremptory instruction was proper, and as the pleadings support the judgment, the judgment appealed from must be and is therefore affirmed.
Exhibit 12.1
 
 Fiscal Year EndedOctober 25,
    
    
    October 27,
    
    
    October 28,
    
    
    October 29,
    
    
    October 30,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Earnings (loss) from continuing
operations before taxes
    
    $
    29,922
    
    
    $
    144,915
    
    
    $
    98,352
    
    
    $
    55,198
    
    
    $
    (19,624
    )Fixed charges from continuing
operationsInterest expense and
capitalization and
amortization of debt
discount and issuance
costs on all indebtedness
    
    
    11,507
    
    
    
    6,414
    
    
    
    7,082
    
    
    
    7,693
    
    
    
    10,677Interest included in rent
    
    
    5,513
    
    
    
    5,159
    
    
    
    3,616
    
    
    
    3,578
    
    
    
    3,722Total fixed charges from
continuing operations
    
    
    17,020
    
    
    
    11,573
    
    
    
    10,698
    
    
    
    11,271
    
    
    
    14,399Earnings (loss) before taxes
and fixed charges
    
    $
    46,942
    
    
    $
    156,488
    
    
    $
    109,050
    
    
    $
    66,469
    
    
    $
    (5,225
    )Ratio of earnings to fixed
charges (1)
    
    
    2.8
    x
    
    
    13.5
    x
    
    
    10.2
    x
    
    
    5.9
    x
    
    
    Coverage deficiency
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    19,624
    (2)
 
 (1)
    
    The ratio of earnings to fixed charges was computed by dividing earnings (loss) from
continuing operations before taxes and fixed charges by total fixed charges from continuing
operations for the periods indicated. Fixed charges from continuing operations include (i)
interest expense and capitalization and amortization of debt discount and issuance costs on all indebtedness
and (ii) one-third of all rental expense, which the Company considers to be a reasonable
approximation of the interest factor included in rental expense.(2)
    
    For the year ended October 30, 2004, earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges.
The Company needed additional earnings of $19.6 million to achieve a ratio of earnings to
fixed charges of 1.0x.