alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7367

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FELTON TABOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-50, CA-03-2079-6-20) Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 22, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melisa White Gay, GAY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Felton Tabor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and the court’s order denying his motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tabor 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 10.16.1


 EXCERPT OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE PEOPLE AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF
   THE MONSANTO COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON FEB. 19, 2003, AMENDING AND
            RESTATING THE MONSANTO 2000 MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN


PEOPLE AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE RES 03-01 - 02/19/03:
------------------------------------------------------

The People and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors RESOLVES
that:

*****

Approval of Amendment and Restatement of the Monsanto 2000 Management Incentive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan
----

     2.  The Monsanto 2000 Management Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby
         amended effective as of the date hereof to: (i) change the name of
         the plan from the "Monsanto 2000 Management Incentive Plan" to the
         "Monsanto Company Long-Term Incentive Plan"; (ii) clarify that the
         Board may delegate authority to a committee of the Board of
         Directors other than the People and Compensation Committee of the
         Board of Directors; (iii) clarify that delegations of authority
         under the Plan must comply with Delaware law; (iv) clarify the
         wording of the prohibition on repricing of options and stock
         appreciation rights, and of the requirement that shareowners
         approve any amendment to delete this prohibition; and (v) state
         that Plan amendments may not be made without shareowner approval if
         such approval is required by the New York Stock Exchange's listing
         standards.

     3.  The Chief Executive Officer of the Company, the Senior Vice
         President, Human Resources of the Company, or either of them, upon
         advice of counsel, are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to
         approve forms, terms or provisions of any agreements or other
         documents as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out and
         effectuate the purpose and intent of the foregoing resolution.

******
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney VAN HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-15877.

D.C. Nos. CV-02-03639-CW, CR-99-40069-CW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*292Submitted Feb. 14, 2005.*

Decided Feb. 16, 2005.

John Laettner, Douglas J. Wilson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paul M. Dennison, Joseph D. O’Sullivan Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before THOMAS, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Defendant Rodney Van Hayes appeals the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction, after a jury trial, for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), felon in possession of a firearm. The question certified for review is whether the government introduced sufficient evidence to corroborate Hayes’ confession to possessing a firearm.

Introduction of the firearm found under the mattress that Hayes slept on several nights a week, in the house that he had rented with others for five or six years, provided independent, corroborating evidence “that the criminal conduct at the core of the offense ... occurred.” *United States v. Lopez-Alvarez,*970 F.2d 583, 592 (9th Cir.1992) (describing the first prong of the requirement of *Opper v. United States,*348 U.S. 84, 89, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954), that independent evidence corroborate a confession). The presence of the gun in Hayes’ bedroom, along with his knowledge of the gun’s characteristics, provided independent corroboration of Hayes’ confession to possessing the firearm. *See id.*(holding that, under the second prong of the corroboration requirement, the government “must introduce independent evidence tending to establish the trustworthiness of the admission[]”). Hayes concedes that he is a felon.

*293Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

JAMES DUBOSE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, KEVIN MYERS, WARDEN

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County

No. 13370 Jim T. Hamilton, Judge

No. M2004-01021-CCA-R3-HC - Filed November 9, 2004

ORDER 

The Appellant, James Dubose, has filed a petition to rehear in this case. The opinion of this

Court, affirming the judgment of the trial court, was filed October 15, 2004. Upon review of the

petition to rehear, we conclude that it should be denied.

It is therefore ordered that the petition to rehear is respectfully denied.

PER CURIAM

Thomas T. Woodall, Judge

David H. Welles, Judge

Jerry L. Smith, Judge
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

LaDonney Ray Fisher,

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01214-02-PHX-JJT

DETENTION ORDER

On September 19, 2019, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be released 

on conditions set by the Court.

The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant 

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. §

3143.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

Dated this 19th day of September, 2019.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
EXHIBIT 10.2



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated March 5, 2003 accompanying the financial
statements of Bioral Nutrient Delivery, LLC for the period January 8, 2003
(inception) through February 28, 2003, contained in the Registration Statement
and prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the
Registration Statement and prospectus.


/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP


Tampa, Florida
March 5, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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 28, 2013

p1021 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2013

147347

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147347

COA: 312636

Wayne CC: 09

- 007033

- FH

LENNIE JACKSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 9, 2013 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs

          - [DR.5B711.IA000814]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Approved Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact.

# SUMMARY:

This notice publishes the approval of the Compact between the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone (Tribe) and the State of Nevada (State) Governing Class III Gaming.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         October 23, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701*et seq.,*                     the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by 25 CFR 293.4, all compacts are subject to review and approval by the Secretary. The Compact allows the Tribal Gaming Commission to determine the number of casinos, mix of games, number of gaming devices, wager, and prize limits. The Compact allows the Tribe to operate “Slots Only Locations” totaling 300 slot machines, provided that no more than 65 slot machines are operated at each location. The term of the Compact is 20 years, and the term can be amended to be coterminous with a financing agreement. The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, is publishing notice that the Tribal-State Compact between the State and the Tribe is now in effect.                

Dated: October 17, 2014.

Kevin K. Washburn,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2014-25296 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Joseph E. Byrne, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Newark Group, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes 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 coveredby this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial 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 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 ensurethat 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; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

Date: March 9, 2007 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John Willie Burch, King Arthur Smith, Bernard Ford *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 3-973A125.

Filed December 12, 1974.]

*430
      *John H. McKenna,*of Gary, for appellants.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *G. Richard Potter,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Staton, J.

A jury found John Burch, King Arthur Smith and Bernard Ford guilty of robbery. They were sentenced to a term of not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty-five (25) years. IC 1971, 35-13-4-6; Ind. Ann. Stat. §10-4101 (Burns 1956). Their appeal to this Court raises only one issue for our review: Was the evidence sufficient to sustain their conviction? Our review of the evidence concludes that the evidence was sufficient and we affirm.

I.

Evidence

Burch, Smith and Ford were passengers in Eddie Camaron’s automobile. They were going to a restaurant at Twenty-Second Avenue and Washington Street in Gary, Indiana. Just as they arrived, Burch said, “ok man, give it up.” Camarón felt something at the back of his neck which he thought was a pistol. He raised his hands. Burch and Smith hurriedly went through his pockets. After the pocket search, Ford hit Camarón on the head with the object held at Camaron’s neck. Camarón was dragged from the car to a gangway at the side of the restaurant where he was beaten again.

When the police arrived at the restaurant, Camaron’s wallet and personal papers were scattered around the gangway of the restaurant. Camarón was lying on the ground bleeding and dazed. Ford fled the scene but was apprehended a few minutes later. Smith and Burch remained at the scene.

II.

Conclusion

The main thrust of the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is focused upon the amount of money taken from

*431Camarón. The affidavit alleged that forty-six dollars was taken. This exact amount was not clearly established by the testimony of Camarón, and the police failed to recover any money at the scene. It is well settled Indiana law that when sufficiency of the evidence is raised on appeal, this Court will not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. We will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. The conviction will be affirmed if, from that point of view, there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the. defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson*v. *State*(1973), 260 Ind. 61, 291 N.E.2d 892.

Camarón testified that he had between forty-five and forty-six dollars before he was struck and beaten. This testimony is sufficient for the jury to have found that Camarón did have an article of value taken from him while he was placed in fear. *Jackson*v. State, *supra.*It is not necessary for the State to prove the exact amount of money taken from Camarón. *Webster*v. *State*(1973), 155 Ind. App. 510, 293 N.E.2d 529.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence in the record and conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm.

Hoffman, C.J. and Garrard, J., concur.

Note. — Reported at 319 N.E.2d 654.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Name ______________________

Bar # ______________________

Firm ______________________

Address ______________________

______________________

______________________

Telephone ______________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Plaintiff,

vs.

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

Corporate Disclosure Statement

This Corporate Disclosure Statement is filed on behalf of ___________________________

 in compliance with the provisions of: (check one)

____ Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a nongovernmental corporate party to an

action in a district court must file a statement that identifies any parent corporation

and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock or states that

there is no such corporation.

____ Rule 12.4(a)(1), Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, any nongovernmental corporate

party to a proceeding in a district court must file a statement that identifies any

parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its

stock or states that there is no such corporation.

____ Rule 12.4(a)(2), Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, if an organizational victim of

alleged criminal activity is a corporation the government must file a statement

identifying the victim and the statement must also disclose the information required

by Rule 12.4(a)(1).

Sarah Weimer 030498 Arizona Center for Disability Law 177 North Church Avenue Suite 800 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 327-9547

Laura Roberts Starbucks Coffee Company

Plaintiff, Laura Roberts
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The filing party hereby declares as follows:

____ No such corporation.

____ Party is a parent, subsidiary or other affiliate of a publicly owned corporation as

listed below. (Attach additional pages if needed.)

______________________________________ Relationship__________________________

____ Publicly held corporation, not a party to the case, with a financial interest in the

outcome. List identity of corporation and the nature of financial interest. (Attach

additional pages if needed.)

__________________________________________ Relationship______________________

_____ Other(please explain)

________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

A supplemental disclosure statement will be filed upon any change in the

information provided herein.

Dated this _________ day of __________________, ________.

_______________________________

Counsel of Record

Certificate of Service:

✔

14th October 2015 Sarah Weimer
No. 87-1411.

#### New England Insurance Co. *v.*International Bank of Miami, N. A.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Royal as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ Joseph P. CampbellJoseph P. CampbellChief Executive OfficerJanuary 23, 2007  56
Exhibit 35.3


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


CAPITAL ONE MULTI-ASSET EXECUTION TRUST





Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust


c/o Capital One Funding, LLC


1600 Capital One Drive, Room 27907-A


McLean, Virginia 22102





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Capital One, National Association (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that:





1.     A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Services Agreement dated as of March 16, 2006, by and between Capital One Bank (USA), National Association and the Servicer (the “Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.





2.     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreements in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 25 th day of March 2022.





CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


By:/s/ GIRISH BACHANIName:Girish BachaniTitle:Chief Financial Officer