alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cornell SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 67408.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

April 16, 1996.

M. Stephen Marshall, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgments entered upon the convictions by a jury on two counts of possession of a controlled substance. § 195.202, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a prior offender to concurrent ten year terms of imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor *143serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6282

DARRELL J. MICKELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN STIRLING; C. REYNOLDS; MR. DAVIS; MR. SHARPE; MR. 

GRAHAM; MR. NOLAN; MR. WILLIAMS; MS. SHAW; MS. SMITH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:15-cv-04656-RBH)

Submitted: September 29, 2017 Decided: October 12, 2017

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell J. Mickell, Appellant Pro Se. David Cornwell Holler, LEE ERTER WILSON 

HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrell J. Mickell appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation 

of the magistrate judge and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in 

Mickell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and the magistrate judge’s orders denying his 

motions to appoint counsel and to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Mickell v. Stirling, No. 6:15-cv-04656-RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2015; Jan. 25, 2016; Sept. 

13, 2016; Feb. 15, 2017). 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.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent toincorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statement on Forms S-8 File Nos. 333-69420, 333-69416, and 333-169454, Form S-3D No. 333-111309 and Form S-3 File No. 33-71692 of Dimeco, Inc. of our report datedMarch 10, 2011, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appears in the December 31, 2010, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dimeco, Inc. 

/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C. 

Wexford, Pennsylvania 

March 25, 2010
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Capital Management, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Michael D. Queen, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
      knowledge:




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.




/s/ Michael
              D. QueenMichael
                D. QueenPresident
              (Principal Executive Officer)December
                13, 2006




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed
      filed
      by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to liability under that Section.
      This 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 this certification is expressly incorporated by reference into any such
      filing.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9323]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-230-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Co.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

April 11, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 6, 1995, Florida Gas Transmission Company 
(FGT), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet:

First Revised Sheet No. 125A

    On February 10, 1995, in Docket No. RP95-159-000 FGT filed tariff 
provisions for the disposition of Unauthorized Gas delivered to FGT's 
system. Subsequently, on March 14, 1995, the Commission issued an order 
(Order) on the proposed tariff provisions, which, among other things, 
required FGT to delete language applying the proposed Unauthorized Gas 
provisions retroactively. However, in the Order the Commission stated 
that, ``FGT may propose in a separate filing a mechanism for addressing 
the unauthorized volumes currently existing on its system''.
    In the instant filing, FGT is proposing tariff provisions for the 
disposition of Unauthorized Gas delivered to FGT's system prior to 
March 15, 1995. Specifically, FGT is proposing that, on the first day 
of the month following the effectiveness of the tariff provisions 
proposed herein, FGT will post on its Electronic Bulletin Board all 
Unauthorized Gas received prior to March 15, 1995. Shippers will then 
be given sixty days from the date of posting to submit a valid claim 
and thirty days after FGT has validated the claim to schedule such 
volumes. Any volumes not claimed shall be retained by FGT.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426 in accordance with Secs. 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on 
or before April 18, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9323 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4871

_____________________________

MICHAEL AARON ANDERSON,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James O. Shelfer, Judge.

October 3, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Based on Appellee’s confession of error, the Order of 

Dismissal is vacated and this cause is remanded for further 

proceedings. See Jackson v. McDonough, 28 So. 3d 61 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2006). 

WOLF, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Michael Aaron Anderson, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kristen J. Lonergan, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michael D. Queen, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material 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 misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  December 21, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19036-19037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9198]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-299-000]


Texas Gas Transmission Corp. and Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corp.; Notice of Joint Application for Abandonment

April 10, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 5, 1995, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas), 3800 Frederica Street, Owensboro, Kentucky, 
42301 and Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (TETCO), P.O. Box 
1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in Docket No. CP95-299-000 an 
application pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act for 
permission and approval to abandon an exchange service between Texas 
Gas and TETCO and facilities which were authorized in Docket No. G-
13268 and G-1086, all as more fully set forth in the application on 
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Texas Gas and TETCO propose to abandon an exchange service and to 
abandon the Orleans Purchase Meter Station in Orange County, Indiana.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said application should on or before May 1, 1995, file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, 
a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with the requirements 
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 
385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). 
All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any 
hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
Commission's Rules.
    Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the 
[[Page 19037]] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Sections 7 and 
15 of the Natural Gas Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, a hearing will be held without further notice before the 
Commission or its designee on this application if no motion to 
intervene is filed within the time required herein, if the Commission 
on its own review of the matter finds that permission and approval for 
the proposed abandonment are required by the public convenience and 
necessity. If a motion for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if 
the Commission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is 
required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.
    Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, 
it will be unnecessary for Texas Gas or TETCO to appear or be 
represented at the hearing.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9198 Filed 4-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5362

Arrowhead Electrical Products, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9555]



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


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-30,890]


Robertshaw Controls Company, El Paso, Texas; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on April 3, 1995 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of workers at Robertshaw Controls Company, El Paso, 
Texas.
    A negative determination applicable to the petitioning group of 
workers was issued on December 22, 1994 (TA-W-30451). No new 
information is evident which would result in a reversal of the 
Department's previous determination. Consequently, further 
investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the 
investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C., this 6th day of April, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-9555 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6686

C&U Americas, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51050 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VALENTIN HERNANDEZ-FAVELA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-290-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Valentin Hernandez-Favela raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Along Mobile Technology Inc., Inc.,Inc. for the Quarter Ending July 31, 2005, I, Wang Zhen, ChiefFinancial Officer of Along Mobile Technology Inc. hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

1.      SuchQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2005,fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.      Theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the periodended July 31, 2005, fairly represents in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Along Mobile Technology Inc. 

 
| Dated: September 12, 2005 |
|---------------------------|

 

**ALONG MOBILE TECHNOLOGY INC.**

 
| By: | */s/  Wang Zhen*Chief Financial Officer |
|-----|-----------------------------------------|
Exhibit 99




INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT


Board of Directors
Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck
Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of March 31, 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three-month periods
ended March 31, 2000 and 1999 and the consolidated statement of changes in
shareholders' equity for the three month period ended March 31, 2000.  These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures
to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial
and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit
conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and
cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report
dated January 28, 2000 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those
consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth
in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1999, is
fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated
balance sheet from which it has been derived.

/s/S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.


Steubenville, Ohio
April 26, 2000


S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
626 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, Ohio 43592-1982
Phone: 740-282-2771
Facsimile: 740-282-1606
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7116

ECM Industries LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel