alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Tyronne MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. S76-1010

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 11, 1976.

*271John Tyronne Martin, pro se.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Miami, Fla., Marsha G. Madorsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, DYER and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al.,*5 Cir., 1970. 431 F.2d 409. Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Martin was charged with robbery in 1969, convicted March 6, 1970, and sentenced to a term of six months to 20 years. The trial judge refused to grant him credit on his sentence for time served in jail while awaiting trial. After exhausting state remedies, Martin brought his claim for presentence detention credit to the federal courts in a habeas corpus action. The District Court denied relief and this appeal followed.

In *Jackson v. Alabama,*530 F.2d 1231 (CA5, 1976), this court reviewed the law on this question and reaffirmed the general rule of *Gremillion v. Henderson,*425 F.2d 1293, 1294 (CA5, 1970): “there is no federal constitutional right to credit for time served prior to sentence.” The present case is on all fours with *Gremillion.*There, as here, the trial judge had complete discretion to grant or deny credit.1 As in *Gremillion,*therefore, the petitioner has not been victimized by any “arbitrary classification.” *Id.*at 1294 n. 4.

An exception to the general rule may be claimed by a criminal defendant who is confined before sentencing because his indigency prevents him from making bond. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees against wealth discrimination, such a defendant is entitled to credit if he is sentenced to the statutory maximum term for his particular offense. *Hill*v. *Wainwright,*465 F.2d 414 (CA5, 1972); *Hart v. Henderson,*449 F.2d 183 (CA5, 1971). But this exception does not benefit Martin. He was sentenced to serve 20 years at most, whereas the statutory maximum sentence for robbery in Florida was, at the time, life imprisonment.2 As was squarely held in *Jackson v. Alabama, supra,*the exception mentioned applies only to those prisoners serving maximum sentences. Moreover, the record indicates that Martin was not confined before trial because of his poverty *272but because the state court judge decided to revoke bail. Thus the wealth discrimination analysis underlying *Hart*and *Hill*is not relevant here.

Martin also complains of the District Court’s failure to appoint counsel. There is no merit in this contention.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Although credit for time served would be mandatory under the present law of Florida, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 921.161(1) (Supp.1974), in 1970 the decision on whether to allow credit was relegated to the sentencing judge’s discretion. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 921.161(1) (1973); *Richardson v. State,*243 So.2d 598 (Fla.App., 1971). We are not asked to construe the new statute as being retroactive.

2

. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 813.011 (1973).
EXHIBIT 11
                                        
                      SPARTECH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
                                        
                                 QUARTER ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                 Aug. 1,   Aug. 2,   Aug. 1,   Aug. 2
                                 1998      1997      1998      1997

NET EARNINGS
  Basic and diluted
    net earnings                $  9,020  $  6,731  $ 24,904  $ 18,885

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
 OUTSTANDING
  Basic weighted average common
   shares outstanding             27,102    26,403    26,775    26,387
  Add:  Shares issuable from
   assumed exercise of options     2,001     1,588     1,889     1,437

  Diluted weighted average        29,103    27,991    28,664    27,824
   shares outstanding


NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

  Basic                         $    .33  $    .25  $    .93  $    .72
  Diluted                       $    .31  $    .24  $    .87  $    .68
#### Jason ORTEGA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7257.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Jason Ortega, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jason Ortega, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Ortega has not made the requisite showing. *See Ortega v. Angelone,*No. CA-01-826-3 (E.D.Va. Aug. 13, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the Government’s motion to strike Ortega’s supplemental brief. 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.*
206 La. 579

#### STATE v. BEAMISH.

No. 37541.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 14, 1944.

*259Victor Van Horn Blackwell, of Frank-linton, for relator.

A. M. Wallace, of Benton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition of Mrs. Mervin Sidney Beamish, defendant-relatrix, who is applying for a rehearing, cannot be considered.

It is provided in Section S of Rule XII of the Rules of this Court, 191 La. xliv, that an application for a rehearing will not be considered in a case where the Court has refused to grant a writ of certiorari *or*other supervisory writ or rule nisi. The rule of court is applicable in all cases, even when the reason given by this Court for refusing to grant a supervisory writ or rule nisi is that the judgment or order complained of is correct, and even when this Court renders an opinion explaining why the judgment or ruling complained of is correct. Blaize v. Hayes, 204 La. 298, 15 So.2d 228.

For the reasons assigned, the application for a rehearing is denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### General Services Administration

          - 48 CFR Part 522
          - [GSAR Amendment 2008-01; GSAR Case 2006-G505; (Change 22); Correction; Docket FAR-2008—0007; Sequence 1]

# AGENCIES:

General Services Administration (GSA), Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer.

# ACTION:

Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The General Services Administration (GSA) is issuing a correction to GSAR Amendment 2008-01; GSAR Case 2006-G505; (Change 22), which was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         at 73 FR 46202, August 8, 2008.                    

# DATES:

Effective Date: August 22, 2008.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

The Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Room 4041, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, (202) 501-4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Mr. Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-3775. Please cite GSAR Amendment 2008-01; GSAR Case 2006-G505; (Change 22); Correction.

# 

*Correction*

In the final rule document appearing in the issue of August 8, 2008:

1. On page 46202, second column, last paragraph under “Background,” remove “deleted in its entirety because of its potential for conflict” and add “revised to ensure consistency” in its place.

Dated: August 18, 2008.

Laurieann Duarte,

Acting Director, Regulatory Secretariat.

[FR Doc. E8-19501 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-61-S
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1.
    
    The Companys amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  /s/ W. Kirk BrassfieldW. Kirk BrassfieldSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. DA 06-0620

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2007 MT 25N

IN THE MATTER OF D.R. and A.S.,

Youths in Need of Care.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. CDJ-05-111-Y Honorable Kenneth R. Neill, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Joslyn Hunt, Assistant Appellant Defender, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Mark Mattioli, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Brant S. Light, Cascade Count Attorney; Sarah Corbally Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: January 16, 2007 Decided: February 6, 2007

Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk2 Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, terminated J.S.’s parental rights to her sons D.R. and A.S. in August of 2006, fifteen months after it granted the Department of Public Heath and Human Services (DPHHS) temporary investigative authority and ten months after it adjudicated the boys youths in need of care and granted their temporary legal custody to DPHHS. J.S. appeals, arguing that th e District Court abused its discretion because she had made some progress toward completing her court-approved treatment plan. We

affirm. ¶3 We have determined to decide this case pur suant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the brie fs and the record that the appeal is without merit. Partial, or even substantial, compliance with a treatment plan is not sufficient to forestall termination of parental rights if other criteria for termination ha ve been established.

See § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, and , e.g. , In re T.L ., 2005 MT 256, ¶ 14, 329 Mont. 58, ¶ 14, 122 P.3d 453, ¶ 14 (citation omitted). The District Court did not abuse its discretion in terminating J.S.’s parental rights. ¶4 Affirmed.3 /S/ KARLA M. GRAY

We concur:

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ BRIAN MORRIS /S/ JIM RICE
Exhibit
32.1




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 Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Atwood Minerals and Mining Corp., a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Greg Goldberg, President 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.




Dated:
March 16, 2009




/s/ Greg GoldbergGreg Goldberg,President, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
      Officer, Principal Accounting Officer,
                Secretary,
      and Treasurer
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Annual Report of Scout Acquisition, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott
Baily, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.






/s/
      Scott BailyScott
      Baily
              Principal
      Financial Officer
              March
      31, 2009
#### ALLEN et al. v. YANTIS.

No. 1997.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 6, 1939.

Robt R. Stone, of Lake Charles, for appellants.

Plauche & Stockwell, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

LE BLANC, Judge.

Judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s suit on an exception of no cause of action as in case of non-suit was rendered and signed in the district court on March 10, 1938. On February 14, 1939, at a subsequent term of the district court plaintiff obtained an order for a devolutive appeal on *240oral motion made in open court. The suit having been filed under the benefit of the pauper act, no appeal bond was necessary and transcript of appeal was filed in this court in due time on March 9, 1939.

'Defendant, áppellee before this court, now moves for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the same was obtained at a term of court subsequent to that during which judgment . was rendered and signed, on oral motion made in open court only and without petition and citation.

Plaintiff, appellant, urges no defense to the motion, her counsel stating in brief that he does not find any jurisprudence to the effect that an appeal taken as was the present is maintainable. He accordingly submits the matter to the court.

The law and jurisprudence both amply support the motion and it has to prevail. An appeal can only be taken by motion in open court and without citation to the appellee when such motion is made at the same term of court in which the judgment is rendered. Code of Practice, Arts. 573, 574, 581-583. “When an appeal ■has been taken by motion in open court, during a term subsequent to the term in which the judgment was rendered, and no 'citation to appear m the appellate court was asked for or issued, a motion to dismiss the appeal must prevail.” See Officer et al. v. American Insurance Company, 182 La. 1054, 162 So. 771 and numerous cases therein cited.

Motion sustained and appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 652 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 652

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide a grant to the 
Board of Directors of the George Washington Boyhood Home Foundation for 
      the stabilization, preservation, and interpretation of the 
  archeological resources and visual integrity of Ferry Farm, boyhood 
         home of George Washington, America's first President.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 1995

 Mr. Bateman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide a grant to the 
Board of Directors of the George Washington Boyhood Home Foundation for 
      the stabilization, preservation, and interpretation of the 
  archeological resources and visual integrity of Ferry Farm, boyhood 
         home of George Washington, America's first President.

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

SECTION 1. GRANT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON 
              BOYHOOD HOME FOUNDATION.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Director of the National Park Service, shall, to the extent amounts are 
provided in appropriations Act, provide a grant to the Board of 
Directors of the George Washington Boyhood Home Foundation, upon 
application by the Board to the Secretary not later than one year after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Use of Grant.--The grant provided under subsection (a) may be 
used only for the stabilization, preservation, and interpretation of 
the architectural and archaeological resources of Ferry Farm, boyhood 
home of George Washington in Stafford County, Virginia.
    (c) Report.--The Board of Directors of the George Washington 
Boyhood Home Foundation, shall submit to the Secretary of Interior, for 
each fiscal year in which the Board expends any portion of the grant 
provided under subsection (a), a report describing the use of the 
portion spent during that year and any other information the Secretary 
determines to be appropriate.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated not more than $750,000 for the grant under subsection (a) 
and such funds may remain available until expended.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                    PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   Exhibit 12

COMPUTATION OF TOTAL DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
(Unaudited; dollars in millions)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          June 30,        December 31,
                                            2001             2000
                                            ----             ----
<S>                                       <C>             <C>
Short-term debt                           $   60.0            518.2
Current portion of long-term debt            369.1            206.5
Long-term debt                             2,538.0          1,963.0
                                          --------          -------
       Total debt                          2,967.1          2,687.7

Minority interests in consolidated
subsidiaries                                  59.4             91.7
Common shareholders' equity                2,892.2          3,105.0
                                          --------          -------
       Total capitalization               $5,918.7          5,884.4
                                          ========          =======

Ratio of total debt to total
capitalization                                50.1%            45.7%
                                          ========          =======
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19725]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Meeting of the Ocean Research and Resources Advisory 
Panel

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel (ORRAP) will 
meet to discuss National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC) and 
Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management 
Integration (ICOSRMI) activities. All sessions of the meeting will 
remain open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 from 8 a.m. 
to 5:30 p.m. and Wednesday, April 16, 2008 from 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. In 
order to maintain the meeting time schedule, members of the public will 
be limited in their time to speak to the Panel. Members of the public 
should submit their comments one week in advance of the meeting to the 
meeting Point of Contact.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Consortium for Ocean 
Leadership, 1201 New York Ave., NW., Suite 420, Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles L. Vincent, Office of 
Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street Suite 1425, Arlington, VA 
22203-1995, telephone: 703-696-4118.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of open meeting is provided in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). 
The meeting will include discussions on ocean research to applications, 
ocean observing, professional certification programs, and other current 
issues in the ocean science and resource management communities.

    Dated: August 19, 2008.
L. R. Almand,
Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-19725 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P