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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6477

CHRISTOPHER J. MOLTZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-02-397-2)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher J. Moltz, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

 Our review of the record reveals that Moltz was convicted of

murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery, not as an

accessory after the fact of murder, as stated in the district

court’s opinion.

2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher J. Moltz seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).* We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Moltz has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123

S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

(2000). 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
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lloyd BOBO, Jr.

No. 2011-KO-1524.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Bobo Jr., Lloyd; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District *1203Court Div. 5, No. 266,717; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,225-KA.

Denied.
BEDFORD BANCSHARES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

                                   EXHIBIT 11

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended          Six Months Ended
                                                            March 31                  March 31
                                                   ------------------------   ------------------------
                                                      1997           1996        1997          1996
                                                      ----           ----        ----          ----

<S>                                                <C>           <C>          <C>           <C>       
Net Income.......................................  $  414,000    $  398,000   $  771,000    $  753,000
                                                   ==========    ==========   ==========    ==========

Primary and Fully Diluted:

Average Shares Outstanding, Net of
  ESOP Shares (60,847 and 68,749 at March 31,
    1997 and 1996, respectively.)................   1,081,005     1,125,984    1,081,297     1,128,013
                                                   ==========    ==========   ==========    ==========

Per Share Amount ................................  $      .38    $      .35   $      .71    $      .67
                                                   ==========    ==========   ==========    ==========

</TABLE>


   Earnings  per share of common  stock for the three and six months ended March
31, 1997 and 1996 have been determined by dividing net income for the periods by
the weighted  average number of shares of common stock  outstanding  net of ESOP
shares.







                                      -13-
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Sumito Mulchandani, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

Dated March 21, 2017

 
|   | /s/ Sumito Mulchandani                |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Sumito Mulchandani                    |
|   | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|   | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|   | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner |
|   | Trust 2014-B                          |

 

----
Opinion filed April 21, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ 

No. 11-22-00060-CR 

___________ 

SUSAN OVERTON HUMPHREY, Appellant

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 118th District Court 

Howard County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 15456

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In September 2021, Susan Overton Humphrey, Appellant, pled guilty to the 

offense of murder, and the trial court assessed her punishment, pursuant to the terms 

of a plea bargain agreement, at imprisonment for twenty-five years. In March 2022, 

Appellant began to file documents indicating that she wished to pursue an appeal. 

Because Appellant did not timely file a notice of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. 

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal is due 

to be filed either (1) within thirty days after the date that sentence is imposed or 
2

suspended in open court or (2) if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial, 

within ninety days after the date that sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. 

TEX.R. APP. P. 26.2(a). A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the clerk 

of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). The documents on file in this appeal 

indicate that Appellant’s sentence was imposed on September 2, 2021, and that

Appellant first filed a notice of appeal on March 21, 2022—200 days after her

sentence was imposed. The notice of appeal was therefore untimely. 

Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for 

extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. Slaton v. State, 

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–

23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1993). Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction 

over this appeal and must dismiss it. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.

When the appeal was docketed in this court, we notified Appellant that the 

notice of appeal appeared to be untimely, and we informed her that this appeal may 

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We requested that Appellant file a response 

showing grounds upon which this appeal could continue. Appellant has filed various 

documents in this court, but she has not provided this court with any grounds upon 

which the appeal may continue. 

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

April 21, 2022 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

                        Judith Ingram, Press Officer                         *Telephone:*                         (202) 694-1220.                     

Shawn Woodhead Werth,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-25048 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7155 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7155

To reauthorize appropriations for the creation and analysis of national 
                       drinking water standards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 2018

   Ms. Meng introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize appropriations for the creation and analysis of national 
                       drinking water standards.

    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 ``National Drinking Water Standards 
Reauthorization Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS ASSESSMENT 
              AND DEVELOPMENT.

    Section 1412(b)(3) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-
1(b)(3)) is amended by striking ``$35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
1996 through 2003'' and inserting ``$35,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2019 through 2023''.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHAEL L. FISCHER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00595

- ELH

- 1 )

Submitted : June 29, 2021 Decided: July 2, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael L. Fischer , Appellant Pro Se. Zachary Augustus Myers , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Ba lt imore, Maryland, for Appellee

. Unpublished opinions a re not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael L. Fischer filed a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) , which the district court denied on May 27, 2020. He did not appeal. In October 2020, Fischer fil ed a motion for reconsideration citing the COVID

- 19 pandemic risks in his prison facility. The district court denied this motion as well on January 8, 2021. On January 14, Fischer noted his appeal from both orders. The Government has moved to dismiss Fi scher’s appeal as untimely. A criminal defendant must file his notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may gran t an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Although the appeal period in a criminal case is a claims

- processing rule, not a jurisdictional provision, see United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), “[w]hen the Government promptly invokes the rule in response to a late

- filed criminal appeal, we must dismiss,” United States v. Oliver , 878 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 2017). Because Fischer failed to appeal the May 27 or der within 14 days and did not move for an extension, his appeal as to that order is untimely

. Therefore , we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part . However, because Fischer’s appeal is timely as to the January 8 order, we deny the Government’s motion as to this order. With respect to the January 8, 2021, order, we have reviewed the record included on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this order

. United States v. Fischer , No. 1:14

- cr - 005 9 5

- ELH (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2021). We dispense with oral argument3 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
D ISMISSED IN PART , AFFIRMED IN PART
#### In re Kenya Lavender MARSHALL.

No. 2010-B-2117.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 24, 2010.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.*

| iPursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) has filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline against respondent, Kenya Lavender Marshall, an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Louisiana and Alabama, based upon an interim suspension imposed by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar.1

*277UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 3, 2010, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued an order immediately suspending respondent’s license to practice law pending a final determination of disciplinary proceedings against her. *In the Matter of Kenya Lavender Marshall, an attorney at law in the State of Alabama,*Pet. No. 2010-1205. In its order, the Disciplinary Commission concluded that respondent had engaged in professional misconduct demonstrating that she poses a significant threat of harm to the public, based upon evidence that respondent had recently misappropriated client funds by using settlement proceeds to pay for her own personal expenses rather than to pay outstanding medical liens on behalf of her client.

|2After receiving notice of the order of interim suspension, the ODC filed a petition to initiate reciprocal discipline in Louisiana, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A certified copy of the decision and order of the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar was attached to the motion. On September 21, 2010, this court rendered an order giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted. Respondent failed to file any response in this court.

DISCUSSION

Based upon evidence that respondent converted client funds in a personal injury matter, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar has suspended her from the practice of law in that state pending further proceedings. The imposition of identical discipline in Louisiana is clearly appropriate, and there is no suggestion otherwise upon the face of the record. Accordingly, we will impose the same discipline against respondent as was imposed in Alabama.

DECREE

Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that Kenya Lavender Marshall, Louisiana Bar Roll number 29327, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis, pending further orders of this court.

*

 Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar has the authority to issue orders of interim suspension.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25379]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, October 7, 2010.

Place: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered:  The Commission will consider and act upon 
the following in open session: Jayson Turner v. National Cement Company 
of California, Docket No. WEST 2006-568-DM. (Issues include whether the 
administrative law judge's denial of a miner's discrimination complaint 
was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence.)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

Contact Person for More Info: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 
for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2010-25379 Filed 10-5-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             860
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9349
<ALLOWANCES>                                       115
<INVENTORY>                                       2068
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 13500
<PP&E>                                           20940
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   35383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            15052
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            33
<OTHER-SE>                                       17755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     35383
<SALES>                                          12278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 12278
<CGS>                                             3346
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 11556
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2676)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1017)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1659)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1659)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WAYNE O. CRIPPEN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 592 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WAYNE O. CRIPPEN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 593 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WAYNE O. CRIPPEN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 594 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v. :

:

:

:

:

: No. 595 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court[ 592 MAL 2020, 593 MAL 2020, 594 MAL 2020 and 595 MAL 2020 ]

- 2

WAYNE O. CRIPPEN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of April, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2712

ESTELLA PRADE; JAMES JACKSON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

JACKSON AND KELLY, Attorneys at Law,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Robert Earl Maxwell,

Senior District Judge. (CA-94-18-3)

Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Estella Prade, James Jackson, Appellants Pro Se. Richard D. Owen,

Thomas Ryan Goodwin, GOODWIN & GOODWIN, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's order denying relief in

this civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Prade v. Jackson & Kelly, No. CA94-18-3 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 18, 1996). 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
News United States Air Force
 Air Force announces OTS rated selection board resultsPublished Sept. 29, 2015
                        
                        
                        Air Force Recruiting Service
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                A total of 189 men and women from across America were selected for an officer's commission, officials announced Sept. 28.
Air Force Recruiting Service officials considered 272 applications as part of the Officer Training School rated selection board 15OT03. With the board's selection rate of 69.49 percent, 189 applicants were selected to serve as Air Force officers. Forty-five of the 189 selectees were enlisted members and they’ve earned the chance to attend OTS and trade their stripes for gold bars as second lieutenants.
As part of the selection process, board members review both objective and subjective factors.
Objectively, the board considers each applicant's academic discipline, grade point average and Air Force Officer Qualifying Test scores.
Subjectively, board members evaluate work experience, accomplishments, adaptability, character, leadership ability, potential for future growth and other recommendations. For active-duty enlisted members, performance reports and commanders' recommendations are also evaluated.
Three Air Force colonels review every application. The selection process is similar to an Air Force officer promotion board. No single factor leads to an individual's selection or non-selection, according to OTS selection officials.
Candidates selected can expect to attend Total Force Officer Training at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, in 2016.
For more information concerning OTS and the application process, active-duty members should visit the Basic Officer Training page on the Air Force Portal. Civilians interested in the program should contact the nearest Air Force recruiter.
For a complete list of applicants selected, click here.OTS 



Commission 



FM
EXHIBIT 13.2


CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Orion Engineered Carbons S.A. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:     March 3, 2016





By: _/s/ Charles Herlinger _______________


Charles Herlinger


Chief Financial Officer














SC1:3819725.1