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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7387

XAVIER A. PULLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL HARDEE, Supt.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:11-hc-02091-FL)

Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xavier A. Pulley, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Xavier A. Pulley seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Pulley 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
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         57
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 57
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          89300
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       26910757
<OTHER-SE>                                     (27000000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   57
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1223)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1223)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .000
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                         504,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  204,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    660,305
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,377,965
<PP&E>                                         825,382
<DEPRECIATION>                               (767,594)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,512,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          865,917
<BONDS>                                         64,549
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       161,770
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,512,833
<SALES>                                        760,856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               894,029
<CGS>                                          309,822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,049,089
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (115,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (115,769)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (115,769)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Raymond Griffin, Appellant, v Andrea W. Evans, as Chair of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 755]

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered October 20, 2011 in Franklin County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, and (2) from an order of said court, entered February 23, 2012 in Franklin County, which denied petitioner’s motion for rehearing and/or reconsideration.

Petitioner is currently imprisoned upon a conviction for robbery in the third degree. He was denied release to parole supervision on multiple occasions in 2010, prompting this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court granted respondent’s mo*1222tion to dismiss the petition, and denied petitioner’s subsequent motion for rehearing and/or reconsideration. Petitioner now purports to appeal from both decisions.

The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner reappeared before the Board of Parole subsequent to the determinations at issue and was again denied release. These appeals have thus been rendered moot and, inasmuch as the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable, must be dismissed (see *Matter of Marcelin v Evans,*86 AD3d 880, 880-881 [2011]; *Matter of Blazic v Dennison,*56 AD3d 824, 825 [2008], *lv dismissed*15 NY3d 915 [2010]).

Peters, RJ., Mercure, Lahtinen and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-97063, 333-06419, 333-41321, 333-67841, 333-85105, 333-107738, 333-127163 on Form S-8, Registration Statement Nos. 333-38105, 333-46395 and 333-104277 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-114475 on Form S-4 of ourreport relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Epicor Software Corporation (“the Company”) dated March 31, 2006 (which expressed an unqualified opinion and included an explanatory paragraph relating tothe restatement described in Note 16), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Epicor Software Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Costa Mesa, California 

April 14, 2006
#### Debra H., Appellant, v Janice R., Respondent.

Submitted January 11, 2010;

decided January 14, 2010

Reported below, 61 AD3d 460.

Motion by Single Mothers By Choice et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### State v. Pulley

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 54

No. 619P06

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA05-892)

Denied 08/23/07
#### In the Matter of Fritzner Bechette, Appellant, v Chislaine Feraud, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 685]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Katz, J.), dated January 31, 2012, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fasone, S.M.) dated November 3, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated January 31, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Support Magistrate properly denied the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation because he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification *(see Matter of Grucci v Villanti,*108 AD3d 626 [2013]; *Matter of Rabasco v Lamar,*106 AD3d 1095 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1051 [2013]; *Matter of Gansky v Gansky,*103 AD3d 894, 895 [2013]). “ ‘A parent’s child support obligation is not necessarily determined by his or her current financial condition, but rather by his or her ability to provide support’ ” *(Matter of Solis v Marmolejos,*50 AD3d 691, 692 [2008], quoting *Matter of Davis v Davis,*13 AD3d 623, *930624 [2004]). The father failed to demonstrate that he was unable to provide support at the same level as directed in a prior order of the Family Court. The medical documents presented by the father at the hearing were inadmissible *(see Matter of Bronstein-Becher v Becher, 25*AD3d 796, 797 [2006]), and, in any case, were insufficient to establish that his purported medical conditions prevented him from obtaining employment that was commensurate with his education and skills *(see Matter of Musumeci v Musumeci,*295 AD2d 516 [2002]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                               Jurisdiction of Incorporation
-------------------------------------------        -----------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
Epicor Software Argentina S.A.                     Argentina
Epicor Software (Asia) PTE Ltd.                    Singapore
Epicor Software (Aust) Pty Ltd                     Australia
DataWorks International Export Corporation         Barbados
Epicor Software B.V.I. Limited                     British Virgin Islands
Epicor Software Canada, Ltd.                       Canada
Epicor Software France S.A.                        France
Epicor Software Deutschland GmbH                   Germany
Epicor Software (Ireland) Limited                  Ireland
Epicor Software (Holdings)                         Ireland
Epicor Software Mexico, S.A. de C.V.               Mexico
Epicor Software Nederland BV                       Netherlands
Epicor Software (NZ) Limited                       New Zealand
Epicor Software (North Asia) Limited               Hong Kong
Epicor Software Nordic AB                          Sweden
Epicor Software (Taiwan) Limited                   Republic of China
Epicor Software (UK) Limited                       UK
Epicor Limited                                     UK
Interactive (UK) Limited                           UK
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent v Shadron Rambert, Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 55]

—Appeals having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Feter Benitez, J), rendered on or about May 2, 2011, and a judgment, same court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered on or about June 14, 2011, said appeals having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgments so appealed from be and the same are hereby affirmed.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Acosta, Román, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1


           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934:
                    RULES 13a-14, 13a-15, 15d-14, and 15d-15
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I , Thomas P. Raabe, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Arete  Industries,
     Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to
     make the statements  made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such
     statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information  included  in this  quarterly  report,  fairly  present  in all
     material respects the financial  condition,  results of operations and cash
     flows of the  registrant  as of, and for,  the  periods  presented  in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
     procedures  (as  defined in Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure  that
          material  information  relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its
          consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those
          entities,  particularly  during  the  period in which  this  quarterly
          report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented  in  this  quarterly   report  my   conclusions   about  the
          effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures  based on my
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed,  based on my most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit  committee of  registrant's  board of directors  (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls.


Dated: August 23, 2004                       By: /s/ Thomas P. Raabe
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer
DEVON CURRIE,

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. 1D17-329

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 3, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and David A. Davis, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 655 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.655

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the National 
     Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 
              PREVENTION; ACCEPTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SERVICES; FEDERAL 
              FUNDING.

    (a) Authority for Acceptance of Voluntary Services; Striking Two-
Year Limit Per Individual.--Section 399G(h)(2)(A) of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280e-11(h)(2)(A)) is amended by striking the 
second sentence and inserting the following: ``In the case of an 
individual, such Director may accept the services provided under the 
preceding sentence by the individual until such time as the private 
funding for such individual ends.''.
    (b) Reports.--Section 399G(h)(7) of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 280e-11(h)(7)) is amended--
        (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, including an 
    accounting of the use of amounts provided for under subsection 
    (i)'' before the period at the end of the second sentence; and
        (2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:
            ``(C) The Foundation shall make copies of each report 
        submitted under subparagraph (A) available--
                ``(i) for public inspection, and shall upon request 
            provide a copy of the report to any individual for a charge 
            not to exceed the cost of providing the copy; and
                ``(ii) to the appropriate committees of Congress.''.
    (c) Federal Funding.--Section 399G(i) of the Public Health Service 
Act (42 U.S.C. 280e-11(i)) is amended--
        (1) in paragraph (2)--
            (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$500,000'', and 
        inserting ``$1,250,000''; and
            (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``not more than 
        $500,000'' and inserting ``not less than $500,000, and not more 
        than $1,250,000''; and
        (2) by adding at the end the following:
        ``(4) Support services.--The Director of the Centers for 
    Disease Control and Prevention may provide facilities, utilities, 
    and support services to the Foundation if it is determined by the 
    Director to be advantageous to the programs of such Centers.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### FOWKES et al. v. DRAVO CORPORATION.

Civil Action No. 4415.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 12, 1947.

See also S F.R.D. 51.

Sydney C. Orlofsky, for Francis W. Sullivan, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Henry Temin, of Philadelphia, Pa., and J. Roland Johnston, of Thorp, Bostwick, Reed & Armstrong, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

BARD, District Judge.

The defendant has filed a motion under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for an order compelling certain of the plaintiffs to answer two questions propounded to them by counsel for the defendant during the taking of depositions prior to trial.

This is an action to recover overtime compensation allegedly due the plaintiffs under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.1 The plaintiffs are *292now, or were formerly, employed by the defendant. The questions propounded to the plaintiffs, which are the subject matter of the present motion, are as follows:

1. “Are you presently employed?” (If the answer is in the affirmative, the question (la), “By whom are you employed?”).

2. “Have you at any time since leaving the employ of Dravo Corporation made any written application for employment to any employer or prospective employer, wherein you described in any manner or degree your duties as a salaried employee of Dravo Corporation?” (If the answer is in the affirmative, the question (2b), “Name such employer or employers”).

Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, supra, provides that the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.

The Court does not perceive the relevancy of question number 1 propounded by the defendant, nor has the defendant shown that the question of whether or not the plaintiffs are presently employed has any bearing on the subject matter involved in the pending action.

However, I think that question number 2 propounded by the defendant is relevant, and that the plaintiffs should be compelled to answer it. The defendant, in its answer to the complaint, alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were employed by the defendant in bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacities, within the definition and meaning of Section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, supra. Therefore, the nature of the plaintiffs’ employment and their respective responsibilities while employed by the defendant are at issue in this case, and I think that the defendant should be permitted to discover whether the plaintiffs have made any statements to certain persons concerning these matters.

The defendant’s motion to compel answers is granted as to question number 2 propounded by the defendant, and is denied as to question number 1.

1

 Act of June 25,1938, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.