alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-4174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus CHARLES TOBE WOOD, a/k/a Charles James Wood, a/k/a Toby Wood, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-483) Submitted: August 18, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. Keith Kelly, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellant. HaroldWatson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Wood pled guilty to maintaining an establishment for the purpose of distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 (1994). The district court sentenced Wood to imprisonment for 151 months, followed by supervised release for three years. His attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether the district court properly imposed Wood’s sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Counsel asserts that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Wood was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, which he failed to file. Because our review of the entire record reveals no reversible error, we affirm. Wood contends that the district court erred in calculating his offense level and sentencing him to 151 months’ imprisonment. The district court correctly interpreted and applied the guidelines in ascertaining Wood’s total offense level of 29, criminal history category of VI, and sentence range of 151-188 months. Because Wood’s sentence is within the applicable guideline range and the statutory maximum penalty for his crime, this court lacks authority to review his sentence. See United States v. Porter , 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990). In accordance with Anders , we have examined the entire record in this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm Wood’s sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client3 in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petitionbe filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. See Local Rule 46(d). Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. See id. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<CIK>                                             0000921590
<NAME>                                            VALLEY FINANCIAL CORP/VA/
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         4,263
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         74
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    36,214
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                        108,791
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,191
<DEPOSITS>                                     118,921
<SHORT-TERM>                                   10,217
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,303
<LONG-TERM>                                    12,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,099
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 153,191
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                6,842
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1,672
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               47
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               8,561
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             3,785
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,510
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          4,051
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  203
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,515
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,515
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,065
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.03
<LOANS-NON>                                    102
<LOANS-PAST>                                   153
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               299
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               910
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  1
<RECOVERIES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1,112
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1,112
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        1,082


</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EXHIBIT 11

                               Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                               Three and Six Months Ended December 31, 1998 and 1997

                                 (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)




                                                           Three months ended               Six months ended
                                                              December 31,                    December 31,
                                                      ---------------------------     ---------------------------
                                                          1998            1997            1998            1997
                                                      -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>        
Net income ......................................     $     2,818     $     2,742     $     5,669     $     5,428
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========

Number of shares outstanding:
  Weighted average shares issued ................      11,900,000      11,900,000      11,900,000      11,900,000
  Less:  Weighted average shares held in treasury       2,786,240       2,254,564       2,697,326       2,254,996
  Less:  Average shares held by the ESOP ........         952,000         952,000         952,000         952,000
  Plus:  ESOP shares released or committed to be
              released during the fiscal year ...         346,338         259,558         335,100         249,098
                                                      -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
         Average basic shares ...................       8,508,098       8,952,994       8,585,774       8,942,102
  Plus:  Average common stock equivalents .......         607,104         752,078         635,774         729,498
                                                      -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
         Average diluted shares .................       9,115,202       9,705,072       9,221,548       9,671,600
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========

Earnings per common share:
         Basic ..................................     $      0.33     $      0.31     $      0.66     $      0.61
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
         Diluted ................................     $      0.31     $      0.28     $      0.62     $      0.56
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000921450
<NAME> QUANTUM GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          89,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  220,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    518,036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         245,055
<DEPRECIATION>                                (74,971)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,533,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,265,620
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,152
<OTHER-SE>                                     134,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,533,841
<SALES>                                      2,576,792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,677,682
<CGS>                                        1,896,137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  553,589
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                227,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,589
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            167,776
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Merix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Janie S. Brown, Chief Financial Officer 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Form 10Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|
|

|
|

|Dated October 13, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|---------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | 



|
|

|
|

|
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 0485 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CORY LEVI GOODMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until January 3, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 14 2021

12/14/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0485
585 A.2d 382

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID MAURE.

September 18, 1990.

Leave to appeal granted. (See 240 *N.J.Super.*269, 573 A.2d 186.)
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61772-61773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25157]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-470-471 and 731-TA-1169-1170 (Final)]


Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 
Using Sheet-Fed Presses From China and Indonesia

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject investigations.

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

DATES: Effective Date: September 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher J. Cassise (202-708-5408), 
Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need 
special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact 
the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these 
investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective May 6, 2010, the Commission 
established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the 
subject investigations (75 FR 29364, May 25, 2010). The Commission has 
decided to revise its schedule with respect to the following dates: (1) 
The deadline for filing posthearing briefs by the parties, (2) the 
closing of the Commission's record, and (3) the deadline for filing of 
final comments by parties.
    The revised deadline for filing posthearing briefs is October 1, 
2010. The Commission's record will close on October 18, 2010. The 
revised deadline for filing of final comments is October 20, 2010.
    For further information concerning these investigations see the 
Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and 
part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Authority:  These investigations are being conducted under 
authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is 
published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.


[[Page 61773]]


    Issued: September 30, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-25157 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
584 A.2d 243

#### CHILDREN’S SPECIALIZED HOSPITAL v. CITY OF PATERSON, ETC.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134725 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134725 

 COA: 278720 

Jackson CC: 06-004134-FH 

CHRISTINE ANNE PRATER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1022 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 29, 2007 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 718 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 718

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the unlawful 
           disposal of fetal remains, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2017

Mr. Tiberi (for himself, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Joyce 
of Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Latta, Mr. Renacci, Mr. Turner, Mr. Johnson of 
Ohio, Mr. Stivers, and Mr. Chabot) introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the unlawful 
           disposal of fetal remains, 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 the Dignity of Unborn 
Children Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF FETAL REMAINS.

    (a) Prohibiting Unlawful Disposal of Fetal Remains.--Part I of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

           ``CHAPTER 125--UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF FETAL REMAINS

``2741. Unlawful disposal of fetal remains.
``Sec. 2741. Unlawful disposal of fetal remains
    ``(a) In General.--Whoever recklessly disposes of or abandons fetal 
remains in a landfill or in any of the navigable waters of the United 
States shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years or fined under this 
title, or both.
    ``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the disposal of 
the remains of her unborn child.
    ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) Fetal remains.--The term `fetal remains' means any 
        part of a human fetus that is deceased by reason of an 
        abortion, but does not include any such part that has been 
        cremated.
            ``(2) Landfill.--The term `landfill' means a sanitary 
        landfill, as such term is defined in section 1004(26) of the 
        Solid Waste Disposal Act.
            ``(3) Navigable waters.--The term `navigable waters' has 
        the meaning given such term in section 502(7) of the Federal 
        Water Pollution Control Act.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for such part is 
amended by inserting, after the item pertaining to chapter 123, the 
following:

``125. Unlawful disposal of fetal remains...................    2741''.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 60732 Summary Calendar

SEALED APPELLEE , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. SEALED APPELLANT, referred as ‘Jane Doe’,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
After Jane Doe’s 270

- month sentence for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute was reduced to 188 months pursuant to the Government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion based on her substantial assistance, Doe moved the dist rict court to compel the Government to move for an additional Rule 35(b) reduction, arguing
that her reduced sentence d oes not adequately reflect the extent of her
assistance. The district court denied relief , and Doe appeals, contending that

* 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 June 4, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce ClerkNo. 19

- 60732

2 (1) the deni al of her motion to compel was error and (2) the district court should have provided her with counsel to assist the Government in preparing the original Rule 35(b) motion. She also seeks an order sealing the record o n appeal. The Government moves to dism iss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for summary affirmance, arguing that Doe’s challenge to the denial of Rule 35(b) relief is foreclosed

. We conclude that neither dismissal nor summary affirmance is appropriate in this case. See G ibson v. Kilpatrick , 773 F.3d 661, 673 (5th Cir. 2014) ; Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)

. We t herefore deny the Government’s motions to dismiss the appeal and for summary affirmance

. Nonetheless, we affirm the judgment without the need for additional briefing

. Doe’s mere argument that she provided substantial assistance does not entitle her to a Rule 35(b) sentence reduction. See Wade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 185

- 86 (1992) ; United States v. Grant , 493 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2007)

. Doe does not allege any unconstitutional motive on the Government’s part, nor did the Government bargain away its Rule 35(b) discretion. Accordingly, Doe’s argument that the district court erred by denying her
motion to compel is without merit

. See United States v. Jackson , 22 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 1994).
It is not clear that Doe’s second argument

— that she should have been given counsel to assist in preparing the original Rule 35(b) motio n

— is properly before us in light of her failure to appeal that issue following the initial grant of Rule 35(b) relief

. In either event, w e have long held that there is no right to
counsel in relation to a Rule 35(b) motion. See United States v. Palomo , 80 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 1996)

.No. 19

- 60732

3 The Government’s motion s to dismiss the appeal and for summary affirmance are DENIED. The judgment is AFFIRMED. Doe’s motion to seal
the record o n appeal is GRANTED.
649 A.2d 1280

#### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL J. FLATLEY.

July 15, 1994.

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on an appeal as of right pursuant to *Rule*2:2 — 1(a)(1), and the Court having determined that the matter does not present a substantial constitutional question within the meaning of the *Rule*or applicable caselaw;

It is ORDERED that the within appeal is dismissed.