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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6227

PAUL ADKINS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; MICHAEL F.

EASLEY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-98-00681-1)

Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 22, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Adkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
* For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.

P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Adkins, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition

as untimely and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal of the denial of the § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction, because Adkins’ notice of appeal

was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August

4, 1999. Adkins’ notice of appeal was filed on October 2, 1999.*

Because Adkins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
3

Adkins also appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration. However, a Rule 60(b) motion is not a substitute for

appeal. Because the motion merely requested the district court to

reconsider a legal issue, relief was not authorized. See United

States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

of this order as well. 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
EX-10.4(b)



 EXHIBIT 10.4(b) 

April 7, 2014 
 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC 

522 Fifth Avenue, 13th Floor 
 New York, New York 10036 

 

			
	Re:	  	Ceres Managed Futures LLC: Amended Schedules 1 and 2 to the Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement

 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Pursuant to paragraph 13(c) of the Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement dated November 12, 2013, as amended from time to time
(the “Agreement”), between, among others, Ceres Managed Futures LLC (“CMF”), the general partner of each of the limited partnerships listed on Schedule 1 thereto (each, a “Partnership,” and together, the
“Partnerships”), and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“MSSB”), CMF is hereby confirming that Schedules 1 and 2 to the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with Schedules 1 and 2 attached
hereto. 
 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, by signing below MSSB hereby agrees to, acknowledges and accepts the
amendment of the Agreement, effective as of April 1, 2014. 







 If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding of our discussions, kindly sign and
return to us a counterpart hereof (by mail, facsimile or email) as soon as possible. 
  

					
	Sincerely,
		
		 	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 		 	President and Director
		
		 	EACH PARTNERSHIP LISTED ON SCHEDULE 1 HERETO
		
		 	By: Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of each Partnership
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 		 	President and Director


  

			
	Confirmed, accepted and agreed to:
	
	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeremy Beal

	Name:	 	Jeremy Beal
	Title:	 	Executive Director


  
 Page 2 








 SCHEDULE 1 
  

					
	 PARTNERSHIP
	  	 STATE AND DATE OF
ORGANIZATION
	  	 EFFECTIVE DATE

	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.
	  	New York; August 25, 1999	  	October 1, 2013


  
 Page 3 








 SCHEDULE 2 
  

			
	 PARTNERSHIP
	 	 ONGOING SELLING AGENT FEE

	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.
	 	2.90% per year of the adjusted net assets of the Partnership (computed monthly by multiplying the adjusted net assets of the Partnership by 2.90% and dividing the result thereof by 12)1

  

	1	Adjusted net assets are month-end Net Assets increased by that month’s ongoing selling agent fee, management fee, profit share allocation accrual, the general partner’s administrative fee and other expenses
and any redemptions or distributions as of the end of such month. 


  
 Page 4
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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 HBL, LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Roger S. Penske Jr.
and Thomas E. Schmitt, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer, respectively, of the Company, 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.

/s/ Roger S. Penske, Jr.
----------------------------
Roger S. Penske, Jr.
Chairman of the Board,
(Principal Executive Officer)
March 30, 2004

/s/ Thomas E. Schmitt
----------------------------
Thomas E. Schmitt
Secretary & Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
March 30, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to United Auto Group, Inc. and will be retained by United Auto Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Dhara Gayle Hogg,

 

 Appellant,

v.

Lynch, Chappell & Alsup, P. C.,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00305-CV

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of Ward County, Texas 

(TC# 14-03-23274-CVW)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file the reply 

brief until May 31, 2017. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Howard L. Steele, Jr., the Appellant’s Attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s reply brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 31, 

2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10363 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

FLOYD KEITH SULLINS

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07

- CR

- 114

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Floyd Keith Sullins

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sullins has filed a response. T he record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Sullins ’s claims of ine ffective

assistance of counsel or threats against him; we therefore decline to consider

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10363 Document: 00513358719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2016No. 15

- 10363

2 the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar

, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 123 ( 201 4) ; United States

v. Corbett , 742 F.2d 173, 176

- 78 & n.11 (5th Cir. 1984).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Sullins ’s response. We conc ur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused
from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 15-10363 Document: 00513358719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2016
**Exhibit 13.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

** **

In connectionwith the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Gold Fields Limited (the “**Company**”) for the period ended June 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “**Report**”), I, Ian D.Cockerill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

**1****                                     **The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

**2****                                     **The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: December 22,2005

 

 
| /s/ Ian  D. Cockerill    |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Ian D.  Cockerill        |
| Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.02

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 Quarterly Report of Sbarro, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony J. Puglisi, Vice President-Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 12, 2008



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ Anthony J. Puglisi                    
|Anthony J. Puglisi                        
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Principal Financial Officer               

NOTE: A signed original of this certification 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.
#### Richard Earl CHAPMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 50489 — 50495.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 16, 1975.

Will Gray, Bob C. Hunt, Court appointed, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Clyde F. DeWitt, III, and Bert Graham, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., David S. McAngus, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

BROWN, Commissioner.

Appellant plead guilty before the court and was assessed a punishment of five (5) years in each of the seven robbery by assault cases. Appellant is also serving a 25 year sentence in a robbery case which was affirmed by this Court on January 31,1973. Chapman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 584.

Appellant first contends that the court erred in not conducting a competency trial prior to receiving the pleas of guilty. The record reveals that on January 7,1974, appellant’s attorney introduced in evidence a psychiatric evaluation report by Le Roy Androes, M.D., to whom appellant had been referred by his attorney. In his evaluation conducted on December 18, 1973, the doctor found appellant not to be psychotic. The doctor further found appellant to be oriented to time, place and person. His thoughts were logical and coherent. His intelligence was in the bright normal range and he appeared to be capable of abstract thinking. Also, the court inquired of appellant’s coun*9sel as to the competency of appellant. Counsel, who had represented appellant since August 7, 1970, stated that appellant was able to intelligently assist counsel and in counsel’s opinion was mentally competent. Under these circumstances, we find that the careful trial judge did not err in receiving appellant’s pleas of guilty.

Appellant next contends that these seven convictions should be vacated because he was denied a speedy trial. Although these robberies were committed during the years 1969 and 1970 and appellant was not tried in these seven cases until January 1974, this Court as well as the federal courts have repeatedly held that where a plea of guilty is voluntarily and understandingly made, all non-jurisdictional defects, including claimed deprivation of federal due process, are waived. Cf. Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 487 S.W.2d 86; Helms v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 925; Carpenter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 477 S.W.2d 22; Chambers v. Beto, 5 Cir., 428 F.2d 791; Farmer v. Beto, 5 Cir., 421 F.2d 184 and Litton v. Beto, 5 Cir., 386 F.2d 820.

The judgments are affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Investors First-Staged Equity, L.P. 1998 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is 
qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000768834
<NAME> INVESTORS FIRST-STAGED EQUITY, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998   
<CASH>                                           2,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      699
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          47,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,090   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,396   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         45,194     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,054)    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,396    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,176    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,666    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (106)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.45)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2197 

To repeal certain requirements regarding newspaper advertising of Senate 

stationery contracts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 1, 2014 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. ROBERTS) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To repeal certain requirements regarding newspaper 

advertising of Senate stationery contracts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SENATE STATIONERY PROCEDURES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Sections 65, 66, 67, and 68 of 

5 the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 6569, 6570, 6571) are re6 pealed. 

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The fifth para8 graph after the paragraph under the side heading ‘‘FOR

9 CONTINGENT EXPENSES, NAMELY:’’ under the subheading 

10 ‘‘SENATE.’’ under the heading ‘‘LEGISLATIVE.’’ of the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2197 IS

1 Act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 596, chapter 392; 2 

2 U.S.C. 6572), is amended by striking ‘‘sections, sixty-five, 

3 sixty six, sixty-seven, sixty-eight, and sixty-nine,’’ and in4 serting ‘‘section 69’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSE LOPEZ.

January 13, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 8.1

List of Subsidiaries

AU Optronics Corp., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of China, which has seven subsidiaries: 

     (i)  AU Optronics (L) Corp., a corporation organized under the laws of Malaysia. 

     (ii)  AU Optronics Corporation America, a corporation organized under the laws of California, United States of America. 

     (iii)  AU Optronics (Suzhou) Corp., a corporation organized under the laws of People's Republic of China. 

     (iv)  AU Optronics Corporation Japan, a corporation organized under the laws of Japan. 

     (v)  Konly Venture Corp., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of China. 

     (vi)  AU Optronics Korea Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of South Korea. 

     (vii)  AU Optronics Europe B.V., a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands. 

----
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2323 

AN ACT 

To amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to 

provide that fathers of certain permanently disabled or 

deceased veterans shall be included with mothers of such 

veterans as preference eligibles for treatment in the civil 

service. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 2323 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gold Star Fathers Act 

3 of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE TREATMENT FOR FATHERS 

5 OF CERTAIN PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR 

6 DECEASED VETERANS. 

7 Section 2108(3) of title 5, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking subparagraphs (F) and (G) and in9 serting the following: 

10 ‘‘(F) the parent of an individual who lost 

11 his or her life under honorable conditions while 

12 serving in the armed forces during a period 

13 named by paragraph (1)(A) of this section, if— 

14 ‘‘(i) the spouse of that parent is to15 tally and permanently disabled; or 

16 ‘‘(ii) that parent, when preference is 

17 claimed, is unmarried or, if married, le18 gally separated from his or her spouse; 

19 ‘‘(G) the parent of a service-connected per20 manently and totally disabled veteran, if— 

21 ‘‘(i) the spouse of that parent is to22 tally and permanently disabled; or 

23 ‘‘(ii) that parent, when preference is 

24 claimed, is unmarried or, if married, le25 gally separated from his or her spouse; 

26 and’’. 
3 

†S 2323 ES

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 

3 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Passed the Senate September 10, 2014. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2323 

AN ACT 

To amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States 

erence eligibles for treatment in the civil service. cluded with mothers of such veterans as prefnently disabled or deceased veterans shall be inCode, to provide that fathers of certain perma-
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2010 (the Form 10-K) of Botetourt Bankshares, Inc. (the Company), we, H. Watts Steger, III, Chief Executive Officer and Michelle A. Alexander, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



| | (a) | the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
periods presented in the Form 10-K.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|    |  |                              |  |  |  |                      |  | 
|--- |  | ---------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | 
|    |  |                              | 
|By: |  | /S/    H. WATTS STEGER,
III  |  |  |  | Date: March 29, 2011
|    |  | H. Watts Steger, III         |  |  |  |                      |  | 
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer      |  |  |  |                      |  | 
|    |  |                              |  | 
|By: |  | /S/    MICHELLE A.
ALEXANDER |  |  |  |                      |  | 
|    |  | Michelle A. Alexander        |  |  |  |                      |  | 
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer      |  |  |  |                      |  |
CHARLA NICOLE BREWER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3976 and 1 D 15

- 3982

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 15, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Michael Flowers , Judge

.

Glenn M. Swiatek, Shalimar , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant

Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.