alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William Tabachnick, Appellant, v. Leopold Brand, Respondent.

We have *885been compelled to reread the affidavit submitted by the attorney for the respondent, and we now do what we omitted to do when the case was first before us note that it is offensive and scandalous, and require that it be taken from the files of the court. Motion denied, with ten dollar's costs. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
Cite as 2014 Ark. 382

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-14-534

SERGIO ANDRADE-MARTINEZ

 APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

 APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered September 18, 2014

PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF

[WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT

COURT, NO. 72CR-12-677]

HONORABLE WILLIAM A. STOREY,

JUDGE

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION

MOOT.

PER CURIAM

In 2012, judgment was entered reflecting that appellant Sergio Andrade-Martinez had

been found guilty by a jury of multiple felony offenses for which he was sentenced to an 

aggregate sentence of 1788 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. 

Andrade-Martinez v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 604. The mandate on affirmance of the judgment was

issued on November 13, 2013.

On January 14, 2014, sixty-two days after the mandate had been issued, appellant filed

in the trial court a pro se request for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal

Procedure 37.1 (2012), challenging the judgment. The trial court denied and dismissed the

petition on the ground that it was untimely. Appellant lodged an appeal from the order in this

court, and now before us is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. 

We need not consider the merits of the motion for extension of time because it is clear

from the record that appellant could not prevail if an appeal were permitted to go forward. An
Cite as 2014 Ark. 382

appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be allowed to

proceed where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Laswell v. State, 2013 Ark. 407 (per

curiam); Bates v. State, 2012 Ark. 394 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 312 (per curiam). 

In this case, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s Rule 37.1 petition

because the petition was not timely filed.

Pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c), when there was an appeal from

a judgment of conviction, a petition for relief must be filed in the trial court within sixty days of

the date that the mandate was issued by the appellate court. The time limitations imposed in

Rule 37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and, if the petition is not filed within that period, a trial 

court lacks jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief. Laswell, 2013 Ark. 407; Holliday v. State,

2013 Ark. 47 (per curiam); Bates, 2012 Ark. 394; Talley v. State, 2012 Ark. 314 (per curiam). The

petition before the trial court was not timely filed, and, thus, the trial court had no jurisdiction

to grant the relief sought. When the trial court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks

jurisdiction. Laswell, 2013 Ark. 407; Holliday, 2013 Ark. 47; Winnett v. State, 2012 Ark. 404 (per

curiam); Martin, 2012 Ark. 312.

Appeal dismissed; motion moot.

Sergio Andrade-Martinez, pro se appellant.

No response.

2
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May      7, 2010 | /s/Ronald      N. Tutor                   |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                              | Ronald      N. Tutor                      |
|                              | Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer |
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 Annual  Report of  Fearless  International,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
Binder,  President and Chief Executive Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the
Company.

Date:  June 29, 2007

       By:    /s/ Jeffrey Binder
              ------------------
       Name:  Jeffrey Binder
       Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.1

Porter Bancorp, Inc.

Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Maria L. Bouvette, Chief Executive Officer of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company;

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; and

(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.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Dated: March 26, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Maria L. Bouvette   |  | 
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Maria L. Bouvette       |  | 
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |
Exhibit 10.1



 


Amendment to Compensation Matters Agreement of Lori Lipcaman







            Amendment to Compensation Matters Agreement (this "Amendment"), made as of March 4, 2014 by and between Vishay Europe GmbH, a German company ("Vishay Europe"), and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Vishay"), and LORI LIPCAMAN ("Executive") (collectively the "Parties").







            WHEREAS, Executive is employed by Vishay Europe and is a Party to that certain Compensation Matters Agreement made between the Parties as of August 23, 2011 (the "Compensation Matters Agreement");







            WHEREAS, Vishay Europe and Executive may amend the Compensation Matters Agreement by mutual agreement in writing; and







             WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Compensation Matters Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.







            NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:







1.            Paragraph one of the Compensation Matters Agreement is hereby amended by replacing "50%" in the second and third sentences with "100%", and "2011" in the third sentence with "2014".







2.            The amendments to the Compensation Matters Agreement made by paragraph 1 of this Amendment shall be effective as of March 4, 2014.







3.            Except as set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Compensation Matters Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.







4.            This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.







            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf as of the date first above written.












VISHAY EUROPE GMBH







By: /s/ Werner Gebhardt


Name: Werner Gebhardt


Title: Managing Director







Date: April 23, 2014












[Executive's signature on next page]













/s/ Lori Lipcaman


Lori Lipcaman







Date: April 23, 2014
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6426

LARRY S. WHITE, II , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. SHELBY SEARLS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston

. Joseph R. Goodwin , District Judge. ( 2:21

- cv - 00523 )

Submitted : February 27 , 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON , WYNN , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Larry S. White, II, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6426 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Larry S. White, II , seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on White’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

stan dard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the pri soner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. 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 this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6426 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 163 (Thursday, August 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49532-49533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19368]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11380 and <greek-i>11381]


Louisiana Disaster <greek-i>LA-00018

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Louisiana dated 08/15/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 05/13/2008 through 05/15/2008.
    Effective Date: 08/15/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/14/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/15/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Caddo.
Contiguous Counties:
    Arkansas: Lafayette, Miller.
    Louisiana: Bossier, De Soto, Red River.
    Texas: Cass, Harrison, Marion, Panola.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      5.375
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere................      2.687
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      8.000
Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11380 B 
and for economic injury is 11381 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are 
Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)


[[Page 49533]]


    Dated: August 15, 2008.
Jovita Carranza,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-19368 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6496

PAUL M. DELOATCH, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; RICK JACKSON, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-267-2) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 2, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul M. Deloatch, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Norwood League, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 28U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Generally, dismissals without prejudice are not appealable, unless no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff's case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We find that Appellant may be able to save this action through amendment.The district court, accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation, dismissed Appellant's petition because it contained exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519 (1982). Appellant may either exhaust all the claims in the petition and then refile his petition, or he may amend his petition by deleting any unexhausted claims and resubmitting the amended petition to the district court. Id. Thus, while the district court order here might be read to allow resubmission only after exhaustion, it appears that the order merely did not enumerate specifically all of Appellant's options. Because the order which Appellant seeks to appeal is not an appealable final order, see Domino Sugar Corp. , 10 F.3d at 1066-67, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.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
#### Anthony LYNCH-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; C.E. Davis, Warden; K.W. Davis, Warden; M.C. Millard, Associate Warden; G.P. Williams, Associate Warden; S.T. Avent, Associate Warden, Frank Roach, Housing Unit Manager; B. Autry, Inmate Hearing; L.T. Edmonds, Housing Unit; John Doe, Agent of Defendant Garraghty, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-7333.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Anthony Lynch-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Lynch-Bey appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Lynch-Bey v. Garraghty,*No. CA-01M70-3 (E.D. Va. July 3 & Aug. 6, 2002). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
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 Orient Paper, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Winston C. Yen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.





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





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated: March 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Winston C. YenWinston C. Yen

Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial and accounting officer )
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6545 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6545

  To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand certain 
  authorities with respect to the recall of controlled substances to 
        apply with respect to all drugs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2022

Mr. Kim of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand certain 
  authorities with respect to the recall of controlled substances to 
        apply with respect to all drugs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Americans from Unsafe 
Drugs Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION, NONDISTRIBUTION, AND RECALL OF DRUGS.

    (a) Order To Cease Distribution and Recall.--Section 569D of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-8d) is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by striking ``controlled 
        substances'' and inserting ``drugs'';
            (2) by striking ``controlled substance'' each place such 
        term appears and inserting ``drug'';
            (3) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``controlled substances'' and 
                inserting ``drugs''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``of subsection (a)'' after ``an 
                order pursuant to paragraph (1) or an amended order 
                pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (3)''; 
                and
            (4) in subsection (c), by striking ``or an official senior 
        to such Director'' and inserting ``or the Director of the 
        Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (or an official 
        senior to either such Director)''.
    (b) Imports and Exports.--Section 801(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) is amended by striking ``is a 
controlled substance subject to an order under section 569D'' and 
inserting ``is a drug subject to an order under section 569D''.
                                 <all>
```