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

Calendar No. 232

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 680

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 14, 1995

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To extend the time for construction of certain FERC licensed

hydro projects.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

4 Notwithstanding the limitations of section 13 of the

5 Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Com-
2

HR 680 PCS

1 mission, upon the request of the licensee or licensees for

2 FERC projects numbered 4244 and 10648 (and after rea3 sonable notice), is authorized in accordance with the good

4 faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of

5 such section 13 and the Commission’s procedures under

6 such section, to extend the time required for commence7 ment of construction for each of such projects for up to

8 a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section

9 shall take effect for the projects upon the expiration of

10 the extension (issued by the Commission under such sec11 tion 13) of the period required for commencement of con12 struction of each such project.

Passed the House of Representatives November 13,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 232

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 680

AN ACT

To extend the time for construction of certain

FERC licensed hydro projects.

NOVEMBER 14, 1995

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnnie FRIMPONG-MANSO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-7651.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 20, 2003.

Decided March 25, 2003.

Johnnie Frimpong-Manso, Appellant Pro Se. Thadd Anthony Prisco, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Andrew James McKenna, Kenneth Wilson Gaul, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie Frimpong-Manso, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Frimpong-Manso has not made the requisite showing. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Sugg Gaines v. State.

No. 24836.

June 21, 1950.

*80
      *B. R. Reeves,*Palestine, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of possessing whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area, and his punishment was assessed at 90 days in jail and a fine of $100.00.

The state relied on the testimony of the sheriff to the effect that he saw appellant in a car with two others, and that appellant was in the act of pouring some whiskey out of a pint bottle; that he mopped some of it up and produced it upon the trial.

The only other evidence was an agreement that the area was dry, and proof that some seven years previously, appellant had been convicted on a plea of guilty to possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area in three cases.

Such evidence of prior convictions was not admissible for any purpose, and appellant’s objection thereto should have been sustained.

Proof of recent sales of liquor in a dry area by the accused has been held admissible on his trial for possession of liquor for the purpose of sale in such an area. See Smiley v. State, 146 Tex. Cr. R. 342, 174 S.W. 2d 973.

But a sale 15 months prior to the possession by an accused of less than a quart of whiskey in a dry area has been held insufficient to prove possession for the purpose of sale. See Albin v. State, 148 Tex. Cr. R. 114, 185 S.W. 2d 447.

The rule permitting proof of a prior sale has no application to testimony showing that the accused pleaded guilty to or was convicted of possessing whiskey for the purpose of sale on a prior occasion. See Brooks v. State, 138 Tex. Cr. R. 526, 137 S.W. 2d 768.

No presumption of law is applicable here save the presumption of innocence, and there is no proof that the whiskey in the pint bottle was possessed by appellant for the purpose of sale.

*81The state has properly confessed in its brief that the conviction should not be sustained.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### LUNEAU v. MURRELL.

No. 6116.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

May 3, 1940.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1940.

C. F. McMichael and Vincent Hazleton, both of Alexandria, for appellant.

St. Clair Adams & Son, of New Orleans, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Plaintiff sues to recover damages for an amount in excess of Six Thousand ($6,000) Dollars and for causes of action alleges that defendant caused him to be illegally *172arrested, imprisoned and in addition, slandered and defamed his character. Exceptions of no cause and of no right of action filed by the defendant were sustained and the suit dismissed. Plaintiff prosecutes appeal.

Appellee filed here a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction ratione materiae of the demand, which we cannot consider for the reason below assigned.

 The record does not disclose that the lower court signed a judgment dismissing the case after sustaining the above mentioned exceptions, and no such judgment is in the record. The existence of a signed judgment is an indispensable prerequisite to the right of appeal in a case of this character. The absence of such a judgment, we must take notice of ex pro-prio motu; and for these reasons, the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s cost. Riley Feed Manufacturing Co. v. Rogers et al., La.App., 160 So. 330.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             1,110,691
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      8,117,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                       13,081,695
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  23,037,657
<PP&E>                                            11,088,039
<DEPRECIATION>                                     5,248,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    31,914,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              5,835,197
<BONDS>                                            7,166,601
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                        2,633,450
<COMMON>                                           2,928,867
<OTHER-SE>                                        13,349,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      31,914,100
<SALES>                                           31,785,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  32,023,041
<CGS>                                             21,259,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     21,259,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   626,938
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    2,278,991
<INCOME-TAX>                                         861,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                1,417,991
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,417,991
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .37
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE NET OF ALLOWANCE
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | (a)    | if to the Borrower:                                      |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                     |
|   |   | DiaSys Corporation                                       |
|   |   | 81 West Main Street                                      |
|   |   | Waterbury, CT 06702                                      |
|   |   | Attention: Gregory Witchel, Chief Executive      Officer |

----

|   |   | with a copy to:                                                                                              |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                         |
|   |   | Richard T. Keppelman, Esq.       Levy & Droney, P.C.       74 Batterson Park Road       Farmington, CT 06032 |
|   |   |                                                                                                         |
|   | (b)    | if to the Lenders:                                                                                           |
|   |   |                                                                                                         |
|   |   | Morris Silverman       790 Estate Drive       Suite 100       Deerfield, Illinois 60015                      |

|   | and |   |
|--------|-----|--------|

|   |   | Gregory Witchel       DiaSys Corporation       81 West Main Street       Waterbury, CT 06702 |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

|   | BORROWER:          |
|--------|--------------------|
|   | DIASYS CORPORATION |

|   |   |                           |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   |                           |
|   | By:    | S/ JEFFERY B. AARONSON         |
|   |        | Jeffrey B. Aaronson, President |

|   | LENDERS:            |
|--------|---------------------|
|   |                |
|   | S/ MORRIS SILVERMAN |
|   | Morris Silverman    |
|   |                |
|   | S/ GREGORY WITCHEL  |
|   | Gregory Witchel     |
|   |                |
|   |                |
Exhibit 31

      Exhibit 31:  Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

Re:   Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-NC3 (the "Trust")

I, Steven Shapiro, the senior officer in charge of securitizations for the
depositor, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of the Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in
 this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations
under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: HomEq Servicing
Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, NC Capital Corporation, and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company.

Date: May 14, 2007

/s/ Steven Shapiro
By: Steven Shapiro
Title: Vice President
(Senior officer in charge
of securitization of Morgan
Stanley ABS Capital I Inc.,
the depositor)
Exhibit 18


August 8, 1997



Mr. Donald Kiernan
Senior Vice President, Treasurer and
   Chief Financial Officer
SBC Communications, Inc.
175 W. Houston Street
San Antonio, Texas  78205



Dear Mr. Kiernan:

Note 3 of Notes to Consolidated  Financial  Statements of Pacific Bell (PacBell)
included  in its Form 10-Q for the six  months  ended  June 30,  1997  describes
changes in the methods of accounting for pensions and  postretirement  benefits.
You have  advised  us that you  believe  that the  changes  are to  conform  the
accounting of SBC Communications Inc. (SBC) and PacBell and that the new methods
are preferable because the new methods for pensions and postretirement  benefits
are  more  widely  used.  These  changes  were  made by SBC in its  consolidated
financial  statements  reflecting the business  combination with Pacific Telesis
Group  accounted  for as a pooling of  interests,  as reported in SBC's Form 8-K
dated May 8, 1997.

We  conclude  that the  changes  in the  methods  for  accounting  for the items
described  above are to  acceptable  alternative  methods  which,  based on your
business  judgment  to make these  changes  for the  reasons  cited  above,  are
preferable in your  circumstances.  We have not conducted an audit in accordance
with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards of any  financial  statements  of
PacBell as of any date or for any period and  therefore  we do not  express  any
opinion on any financial statements of Pacific Bell.



                                           ERNST & YOUNG LLP
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               Exhibit 11
                   ORION CAPITAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)


                                                                  Three Months Ended March 31,
(In thousands, except per share data)                                1998                1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                               <C>                 <C> 
BASIC:
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                      27,400              27,304
                                                                  =======             =======
Net earnings attributable to common stockholders                  $42,189             $29,478
                                                                  =======             =======
Net earnings per basic common shares                              $  1.54             $  1.08
                                                                  =======             =======

DILUTED:
Computation of weighted average number of common
and diluted equivalent shares outstanding: -
  Weighted average number of shares outstanding                    27,400              27,304
  Dilutive effect of stock options and stock awards                   730                 494
                                                                  -------             -------
  Weighted average number of common and
    diluted equivalent shares                                      28,130              27,798
                                                                  =======             =======

Net earnings attributable to common stockholders                  $42,189              29,478
                                                                  =======             =======

Net earnings per diluted common shares                            $  1.50             $  1.06
                                                                  =======             =======
                                        28
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Stephen Linehan, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required tobe filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofCapital One Auto Finance Trust Series 2006-A (the “Exchange Act periodicreports”);

2.             Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.             Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this reportunder Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreement in all material respects; and

5.             Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances ofnoncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report onForm 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonablyrelied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:****The Bank of New York, First Data Resources, Inc., REMITCO,LLC, FDI Computer Consulting, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Date: March 28, 2007
|        |   | By:    |   | /s/ Stephen Linehan               |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  |   | Stephen Linehan                   |
|   |   | Title: |   | Treasurer                         |
|   |   |   |   | Capital One Auto Receivables, LLC |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Independent BancShares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2007 (the Report), I, Mark A. Imes, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Dennis M. Clarke, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | To my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                |  |  |  |                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                |  | 
|/S/ Dennis M. Clarke                                            |  |  |  | /S/ Mark A. Imes                                                         
|Dennis M. Clarke, Chief Financial Officer Date: March
28, 2008. |  |  |  | Mark A. Imes, President and Chief Executive Officer Date: March 28, 2008.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 
**- 6696** 

JEFFREY SERVIDIO ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

SERGEANT PITTMAN; SERGEANT PRICE ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:13

- ct

- 03072

- D )

Submitted : September 13 , 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jeffrey Servidio, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Servidio seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for appointment of counsel . This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Servidio seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order. Ac cordingly, we deny Servidio’s motion for
appointment of counsel on appeal and dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials

before this court a nd argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED