alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 22, 2005

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

IVAN STAMPS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF COLORADO,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-1000

(District of Colorado)

(D.C. No. 04-Z-2072)

ORDER 

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

On October 7, 2004, Ivan Stamps filed a complaint in federal district court

seeking to challenge the constitutionality of Colorado’s mandatory parole statute

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401(1)(a)(V)(E). 

The district court construed Stamps’ complaint as an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed it without prejudice for

failure to exhaust state remedies. Stamps challenges the characterization of his

complaint and seeks to appeal its dismissal by the district court. 

Because we conclude that the district court properly construed Stamps’

complaint as a § 2254 habeas corpus application, Stamps cannot appeal the
-2-

district court’s denial of that application until he obtains a certificate of

appealability (“COA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no appeal

may be taken from a final order disposing of a § 2254 petition unless the

petitioner first obtains a COA). To be entitled to a COA, Stamps must show “that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484-85 (2000) (holding

that when a district court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, a

petitioner is entitled to a COA only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would

find it debatable whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatable

whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct). Our review of the

record demonstrates that the district court’s dismissal of Stamps’ § 2254

application is not deserving of further proceedings or subject to a different

resolution on appeal. Accordingly, this court denies Stamps a COA and

dismisses this appeal. Stamps’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

granted. All other outstanding motions are denied.

Entered for the Court

DOUGLAS E. CRESSLER, Acting Clerk of Court

By

Deputy Clerk
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4226 

To designate baby formula as a scarce and critical material under the Defense 

Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2022 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, and Mr. 

PADILLA) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate baby formula as a scarce and critical material 

under the Defense Production Act of 1950, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Urgently Feeding 

5 America’s Babies Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF INFANT FORMULA AS CRITICAL 

7 MATERIAL. 

8 Immediately upon the date of the enactment of this 

9 Act, the President shall determine under subsection (b) 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4226 IS

1 of section 101 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 

2 U.S.C. 4511) that— 

3 (1) infant formula is scarce and a critical mate4 rial essential to the national defense; and 

5 (2) the requirements of the national defense for 

6 infant formula cannot be met without exercising the 

7 authority provided by subsection (a) of that section. 

8 SEC. 3. WAIVER BY FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 15 days after the 

10 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health 

11 and Human Services (referred to in this section as the 

12 ‘‘Secretary’’) shall implement a process under which the 

13 Secretary may issue waivers, with respect to an infant for14 mula that is available for commercial use in the European 

15 Union, of the requirements of sections 412 and 415 of 

16 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

17 350a; 350d), and other applicable requirements of such 

18 Act, as appropriate, in order to allow for the introduction 

19 into interstate commerce of such infant formula in the 

20 United States. 

21 (b) PUBLICATION OF GUIDELINES.—The Secretary 

22 shall publish safety guidelines for each infant formula for 

23 which a waiver is issued under this section. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antonio FISHER, Appellant.

No. 64768.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Dec. 19, 1995.

*100Raymund J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Antonio Fisher appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for two counts, Counts II and IV, of assault in the first degree, § 565.050 *1*
      *;*two counts, Counts III and V, of armed criminal action, § 571.015; and one count, Count VI, of unlawful use of a weapon, shooting into a dwelling, § 571.030.1(3). He was sentenced, as a prior and persistent minimum term offender, to two thirty year terms of imprisonment for Counts IV and V and one ten year term of imprisonment for Count VI, all three counts to run concurrently with two consecutive terms of life imprisonment for Counts II and III. Defendant further appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. These appeals have been consolidated for review pursuant to Rule 29.15(95).

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

. All statutory references are to RSMo 1986 unless otherwise noted.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


                       Consent of Independent Accountants


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Cambridge Technology Partners (Massachusetts), Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-
70114, 33-87710, 33-93054, 33-93056, 333-09709 and 33-99672) and on Form S-3
(File Nos. 333-43127, 33-96838, 333-16165 and 333-17347) of our reports dated
February 2, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Cambridge Technology Partners (Massachusetts),
Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for each of the years in the period
ended December 31, 1997, which reports are included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1998
#### COPPEDGE v. COPPEDGE.

(Filed 15 November, 1951.)

1. Wills § 16—

Tbe probate of a will in common form is conclusive and may be attacked only in a direct.proceeding upon the issue of *cLevisavit vel non.*

a. Wills § 39—

In an action to construe a will probated in common form, the issue of *devisavit vel non*is not before the court and the will may not be collaterally attacked therein.

*L. L. Davenport and Cooley ■& May for petitioners.*

Darnhill and Ervin, JJ. On petition to rehear.

*748The petitioners misapprehend the force and effect of the decision herein. This Court has not adjudged that the paper writing referred to in the pleadings is the last will and testament of J. W. Coppedge, deceased. It was so adjudged by the clerk of the Superior Court when the paper writing was probated in common form. That adjudication is conclusive and binding on this Court and the parties in this action. *Holt v. Holt,*232 N.C. 497; *Brissie v. Craig,*232 N.C. 701. It may not be collaterally attacked as here attempted, for the Superior Court cannot determine whether an instrument is or is not a will except upon an issue of *devisavit vel non*duly raised in a caveat proceeding as provided by law. *Brissie v. Craig, supra; Holt v. Holt, supra.*Therefore, the defendants have no standing in this action to assert and maintain their defense that Exhibit A attached to and made a part of the complaint is not in fact the last will and testament of the deceased. That claim must be asserted, if asserted at all, in another and different proceeding. *Holt v. Holt, supra.*

The sole purpose of the action is to have the court construe the will, duly established by probate, and instruct the administrator *c.t.a.*as to the proper distribution of the assets of the estate. After careful consideration, we are constrained to adhere to the construction placed on the paper writing in the original opinion herein, *Coppedge v. Coppedge, ante,*p. 173.

Petition denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00448-CR

Ex parte Mark Aaron Thomas §

§

§

§

§

§

From the 297th District Court of 

Tarrant County (C-297-010626-

1076371-A)

December 22, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
#### RALPH FRAZIER et ux v. SUBURBAN RULANE GAS COMPANY, INCORPORATED.

(Filed 4 June, 1958.)

*560Appeal and Error § 51—

Both competent and incompetent evidence must be considered on appeal in determining- the sufficiency of the evidence to overrule nonsuit.

Petition by defendant to rehear the above-entitled cause which was decided by this Court on November 27, 1957, and is reported in 247 N.C. 256, 100 S.E. 2d 501.

The petition was allowed and briefs were invited on two questions: (1) In answering a hypothetical question, did the expert witness base his opinion upon assumed facts not in evidence? (2) If such evidence should be held to be incompetent or without probative value, is there enough evidence left to carry the case to the jury?

*Larry S. Moore for defendant, petitioner.*

*Max F. Ferree, W. L.*Osteen, *W. H. McElwee for plaintiff, respondent.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant appellant’s brief in the original hearing contained the following: “No evidence was offered by the defendant . . . and the defendant appealed, seeking a reversal of the court below in submitting the case to the jury. . . . The appellant only appeals on the correctness of the court’s ruling in submission of this case to the jury and is not seeking a new trial.”

The plaintiff’s evidence elicited by hypothetical question and answer was fully discussed in the original opinion. If the defendant’s exception to the question and answer were valid they would entitle it not to a reversal, but to a new trial which its attorney of record says it does not want.

This Court has said many times over that on motion for nonsuit all the evidence in the case, both competent and incompetent, must be considered and given weight for reasons stated in *Early v. Eley,*243 N.C. 695, 91 S.E. 2d 919, and the many cases there cited. After due consideration, no reason appears why the former decision should be disturbed. The defendant will pay the costs.

Petition Dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23 (1)

                          Consent of Ernst & Young LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in: (1) the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-14463) of ShoLodge, Inc. and in the related Prospectus; (2)
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-52092) pertaining to the 1991 Stock
Option Plan of ShoLodge, Inc.; (3) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-29881) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan, as amended, of ShoLodge,
Inc.; and (4) the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-77910) of ShoLodge,
Inc. and in the related Prospectus, of our report dated March 22, 2002, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of ShoLodge, Inc.
and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 30, 2001.



                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
April 1, 2002
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of Integrated Process Equipment Corp. (the "Company") on Form S-8 (Registration
No. 33-79178) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission") on May 20, 1994, the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8
(Registration No. 33-80936) filed with the Commission on June 28, 1994, the
Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 33-90384) filed
with the Commission on May 12, 1995 of the Company's Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-1808) filed with the Commission on February 29,
1996, the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-
16287) filed with the Commission on November 18, 1996, the Company's Post-
Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-3
(Registration No. 33-70962) filed with the Commission on February 27, 1997, the
Company's Post-Effective Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No.
33-44746) filed with the Commission on February 27, 1997, and the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-27397) filed on May 19,
1997, of our report dated August 18, 1995, on our audits of the consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows of the
Company for the year ended June 30, 1995, which report is included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                         /s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP


New York, New York
September 2, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
interim condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three months
ended February 29, 2000 and the interim condensed consolidated balance sheet as
of February 29, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
interim condensed consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                          39,391
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (607)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         972,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (97,744)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 948,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        929,470
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (64,547)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   948,938
<SALES>                                         25,716
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,255
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (20,876)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (920)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (15,245)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,866)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,866)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,866)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
SALISBURY BANCORP, INC.


Form 10-Q





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 Quarterly Report of Salisbury Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Cantele, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, B. Ian McMahon, 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


by
/s/
Richard J. Cantele, Jr.

by
/s/
B. Ian McMahonRichard J. Cantele, Jr.


B. Ian McMahonPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.6

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO:     THE HOME-STAKE OIL & GAS COMPANY
                            1997 INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN

                                November 4, 1999

         To reflect a change to the name of the sponsor of The  Home-Stake Oil &
Gas Company 1997 Incentive Stock Plan (the "Plan") and to clarify a provision of
the  Plan,  the  Board  of  Directors  of Home-  Stake  Oil & Gas  Company  (the
"Company") approved the following amendments to the Plan:

1.   On June 8, 1998,  the name of the Company was changed  from The  Home-Stake
     Oil  &  Gas  Company  to  Home-Stake  Oil &  Gas  Company.  Therefore,  all
     references  in the  Plan,  including  in the  title  of  the  Plan,  to The
     Home-Stake  Oil & Gas Company are hereby revised to refer to Home-Stake Oil
     & Gas  Company  or the  Home-Stake  Oil & Gas  Company as the  context  and
     grammar permit or require.

2.   Paragraph  (b) of Section 2.12 of the Plan,  relating to the  definition of
     Fair Market Value of a share of the Common Stock, is hereby revised to read
     in its entirety, as follows:

     "(b) If the Common  Stock is not listed or  admitted  to  unlisted  trading
          privileges  as  provided in  paragraph  (a),  and if sales  prices for
          shares of Common Stock are reported by the National  Market  System of
          the National  Association of Securities  Dealers  Automated  Quotation
          System  ("NASDAQ  System"),  then the last sale price for Common Stock
          reported as of the close of  business on the day Fair Market  Value is
          to be determined, or if no such sale takes place on that day, the last
          sale price for Common  Stock  reported  as of the close of business on
          the next preceding day on which such stock was traded; or"

3.   In all other respects the Plan remains unchanged.

                                  * * * * * * *

     The undersigned,  being the duly elected  Secretary of Home-Stake Oil & Gas
Company,  does  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  Amendment  No.  1 to  The
Home-Stake Oil & Gas Company 1997 Incentive Stock Plan was approved by the Board
of Directors of the Company on November 4, 1999.


                                              /s/ Chris K. Corcoran
                                              ----------------------
                                              Chris K. Corcoran
                                              Secretary



<PAGE>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12563-12564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5486]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

First Farmers Bancshares, Inc.; Notice of Application to Engage 
de novo in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The company listed in this notice has filed an application under 
Sec.  225.23(a)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(1)) 
for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to commence or to engage de novo, either directly or 
through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question 
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
March 21, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. First Farmers Bancshares, Inc., Portland, Tennessee; to engage 
de novo through its subsidiary Tennessee Business and Industrial 
Development [[Page 12564]] Corporation, Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 
community development activities, pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(6) of the 
Board's Regulation Y, and to make, acquire, and service loans or other 
extensions of credit related to community development activities, 
pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(1)(iv) of the Board's Regulation Y. The 
proposed activity will be conducted throughout the state of Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 1, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-5486 Filed 3-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
```