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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7472

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SCOTT ALLEN KING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR98-127-ALL, CA-01-1884-DKC)

Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Allen King, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Scott Allen King seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. King, Nos. CR-98-127-ALL;

CA-01-1884-DKC (D. Md. filed July 3, 2001; entered July 5, 2001).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Section 302 Certification**

 

I, Andrew T. Drechsler, Chief Financial Officer of Insmed Incorporated, certify that:

 

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Insmed Incorporated;

 

(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;

 

 
| Date: March 30, 2015 | By:    | /s/ Andrew T. Drechsler                                                  |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | **Andrew T. Drechsler**                                                  |
|                      |   | *Chief Financial   Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
Amended Notice of Deposition

Dan Norville -1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

LAW OFFICE OF ROGER W. FRAZIER

Roger W. Frazier 2525 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 200

Tucson, Arizona 85716

Tel: (520) 882-4294

Fax: (520) 882-2853

Ariz. Bar No. 012146

roger@frazierlawaz.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Juell, a married individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

Marin Management Inc., d/b/a DoubleTree by 

Hilton Tucson – Reid Park, a foreign corporation;

Marin Management Culver City, Inc., a foreign 

corporation,

 Defendants.

Case No. 4:18-cv-00038-TUC-FRZ

 

AMENDED NOTICE OF 

TELEPHONIC DEPOSITION OF 

DAN NORVILLE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30, a deposition 

will be taken upon oral examination of the person whose name is stated below, at the

time and place below, before an officer authorized by law to administer oaths, and 

recorded by a certified court reporter.

PERSON TO BE EXAMINED: Dan Norville

DATE AND TIME: January 24, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. (3:30 p.m. 

California time) Telephonic

LOCATION: Sousa Court Reporters

3655 Torrance Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90503

/ / /

Case 4:18-cv-00038-FRZ Document 55 Filed 01/23/19 Page 1 of 2
Amended Notice of Deposition

Dan Norville -2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23rd day of January, 2019. 

LAW OFFICE OF ROGER W. FRAZIER

By: /s/ Roger W. Frazier

Roger W. Frazier

Attorney for Plaintiff

Copy to Defendants’ counsel this 23rd

day of January, 20189, as CM/ECF 

registrants, to:

Jodi L. Mullis 

Arizona Bar No. 024044 

jlmullis@wshblaw.com 

Christopher M. Brown 

Arizona No. 034091 

cbrown@wshblaw.com 

Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP 

2525 E. Camelback Road, Suite 450 

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Attorneys for Defendants

By: /s/ Roger W. Frazier

Case 4:18-cv-00038-FRZ Document 55 Filed 01/23/19 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

      I, David Devine, certify that:

      1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  Devine
Entertainment Corporation;

      2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other financial
information  included in this quarterly  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 quarterly report;

      4. The registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

            a) designed such  disclosure  controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is
      being prepared;

            b)  evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's  disclosure
      controls  and  procedures  as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
      date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            c)  presented in this  quarterly  report our  conclusions  about the
      effectiveness  of the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based on our
      evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

      5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,  based
on our most  recent  evaluation,  to the  registrant's  auditors  and the  audit
committee  of  registrant's  board  of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the
equivalent function):

            a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the  design  or  operation  of
      internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
      record,  process,  summarize and report financial data and have identified
      for  the  registrant's   auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in  internal
      controls; and

            b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or
      other employees who have a significant role in the  registrant's  internal
      controls; and

      6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: December 19, 2005

/s/ David Devine
------------------
Name: David Devine
President and CEO
#### Farrar Lumber Co. *v.*Andrews Lumber Co. *et al.*

Atkinson, J.

1. This is an action by an alleged grantee of timber against his grantor and the latter’s subsequent grantee, to enjoin the further cutting of timber, to establish plaintiff’s deed alleged to have been lost or destroyed by the grantor after it was executed, and to recover damages for the value of timber already cut. Relatively to all. the relief sought, the controlling question is whether the paper relied upon as a deed conveying title to the timber to plaintiff, and set forth in the original petition, was delivered and accepted in the form in which it was executed. The deed provided on its face that another person should join in its execution,, for the purpose of releasing a lien which such person had on the property. After the deed was executed by the grantor it was handed by the attorney for both parties to the grantee, and immediately returned to the grantor for the purpose of securing the signature of the lienor, who under express terms of the deed was to sign it as a party thereto. The deed was carried off by the grantor, and was not shown to have been signed by the lienor and was never returned to the grantee or delivered to any person for him. *Held,*that the above facts were insufficient to show an effectual delivery of the instrument, the grantee not having accepted delivery of the deed without the signature of the lienor as such. *Beardsley*v. Hilson, 94 *Ga.*50 (20 S. E. 272). There being no effectual delivery and acceptance of the deed, there was a failure of title in the plaintiff; and the judge did not err in granting a nonsuit.

2. In view of the ruling stated in the preceding headnote, it becomes unnecessary to consider assignments of error relating to the rejection of evidence offered by the plaintiff, which, in so far as sufficient to raise *788any question for decision, related to the fact of notice of plaintiff’s prior purchase of the timber.

No. 3246.

January 19, 1923.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Tarver. Gordon superior court. February 27, 1922.

*G. D. & F. Ii. McGutchen*and *J. G. B. Frwin,*for plaintiff.

*Allison, Lynch & Phillips*and *Maddox, McOamy & Shumate,*for defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14209]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Determination of Quarterly Rate of Excise Tax for Railroad 
Retirement Supplemental Annuity Program

    In accordance with directions in Section 3221(c) of the Railroad 
Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C. 3221(c)), the Railroad Retirement Board 
has determined that the excise tax imposed by such Section 3221(c) on 
every employer, with respect to having individuals in his employ, for 
each work-hour for which compensation is paid by such employer for 
services rendered to him during the quarter beginning July 1, 1996, 
shall be at the rate of 34 cents.
    In accordance with directions in Section 15(a) of the Railroad 
Retirement Act of 1974, the Railroad Retirement Board has determined 
that for the quarter beginning July 1, 1996, 33.4 percent of the taxes 
collected under Sections 3211(b) and 3221(c) of the Railroad Retirement 
Tax Act shall be credited to the Railroad Retirement Account and 66.6 
percent of the taxes collected under such Sections 3211(b) and 3221(c) 
plus 100 percent of the taxes collected under Section 3221(d) of the 
Railroad Retirement Tax Act shall be credited to the Railroad 
Retirement Supplemental Account.

    Dated: May 29, 1996.

    By Authority of the Board.
Beatrice Ezerski,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-14209 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
Case 2:18-cv-00370-SMB Document 116 Filed 04/09/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00370-SMB Document 116 Filed 04/09/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00370-SMB Document 116 Filed 04/09/19 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1424]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 91-193, RM-7717, RM-7822]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Corpus Christi, Three Rivers, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies the petition for reconsideration filed by 
Reina Broadcasting, Inc., of the Report and Order, 58 FR 15423 (March 
11, 1993), in which the Commission allotted Channel 233C2 at Three 
Rivers, Texas, denied Reina's proposal to substitute Channel 234C2 for 
234A at Corpus Christi, Texas, and dismissed Reina's alternate 
proposal, filed after expiration of the comment period, to substitute 
alternate Channel 228C2 at Three Rivers, Texas, and to either 
substitute Channel 264A for Channel 228A at Carrizo Springs, Texas, or 
delete the channel. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media 
Bureau, (202) 776-1653.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket No 91-193 adopted December 7, 
1995 and released January 19, 1996. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased 
from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription 
Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
Douglas W. Webbink,
Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-1424 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has deter mined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-40899

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FREDRICK QURAN BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:95-CR-78-2)

_________________________________________________________________ July 1, 1997

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Fredrick Quran Brown appeals his gu ilty-plea conviction and

sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine,

contending that the district court erred by denying his motion to

withdraw his guilty plea and by increasing his base offense level

for possession of a firearm. For the following reasons, we A FFIRM

.

Brown’s motio n to withdraw his plea was entered prior to

sentencing, eight m onths after he pleaded guilty and after- 2 -

preparation of the Presentence Investigation Report. The record

does not support Brown’s assertion that

, when he entered his

guilty plea, his trial counsel did not properly instruct him on the

plea agreement terms or the effect of the plea process. Nor does

the record support Brown’s assertion that he did not know that the

plea agreement co ntained an admission that he possessed a weapon

during the commission of the crime charged. In sum, Brown has not

demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in

denying the motion to withdraw his plea. S ee, e.g., United States

v. Bond

, 87 F.3d 695, 701 (5th Cir. 1996); U nited States v.

Henderson , 72 F.3d 463, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1995).

Regarding Brown’s sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. §

2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous wea pon during a crime

involving the possession of illicit drugs, Brown’s contention that

Bailey v. United States

, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), applies is without

merit. Because the Supreme Court limited B ailey ’s holding to

convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and Brown was not convicted

of violating § 924, Bailey is inapposite. S ee United States v.

Castillo

, 77 F.3d 1480, 1499 n.34 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.

Ct. 100 (1996) and 11 7 S. Ct. 236 (1996). Brown did not present

any evidence demonstrating his lack of knowledge of the shotgun and

that such lack of knowledge would have made it clearly improbable

that the shotgun was not connected with his drug offen se. S ee

United States v. Brous sard , 80 F.3d 1025, 1040-41 (5th Cir.)

(quoting U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 264

(1996); United States v. Flucas

, 99 F.3d 177, 179 (5th Cir. 1996),- 3 -

cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 1097 (1997). The district court did not

clearly err by enhancing Brown’s sentence by two levels. S ee

United States v. Watson , 966 F.2d 161, 162 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32

                          INTERIM CAPITAL CORPORATION.
               FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2006
      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark Lindberg, certify that

1.   I am the Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer of Interim
     Capital Corporation.
2.   Attached to this certification is Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
     30, 2006, a periodic  report (the  "periodic  report")  filed by the issuer
     with the Securities  Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the  Securities  and Exchange Act of 1934 (the  "Exchange  Act"),  which
     contains financial statements.
3.   I hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
     to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
          o    The periodic  report  containing the financial  statements  fully
               complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Exchange Act, and
          o    The  information in the periodic report fairly  presents,  in all
               material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
               operations of the issuer for the periods presented.


October 18, 2006                                     /s/ Mark Lindberg
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Mark Lindberg
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     Principal Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by Interim Capital  Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This  certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise  subject to the liability of that
section.  This  certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 even if the document  with which it is submitted to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.
#### Wayne Arthur MASON, Appellant, v. Karen Denise MASON, Respondent.

No. WD 45993.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 6, 1993.

Randall Dean Crawford, Koelling & Crawford, P.C., Kansas City, for appellant.

Karen Denise Mason, pro se.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and SHANGLER and KENNEDY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion to modify the custody order and the trial court’s order to pay attorney fees.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14
OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 of Ready Mix, Inc. (the Report);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the 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 the Report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the 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 the 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 we 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 the Report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in the Report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by the Report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in the Report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarterly (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an quarterly 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; andb)
    
    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: May 9, 2007
    /s/ Clint TryonClint TryonChief Financial Officer