alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 810.

#### Boehm *v.*United States.

March 2, 1942.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
LORI SCHMID

Certified Shorthand Reporter

Hays County Court at Law

712 S. Stagecoach Trail, Suite 2292

San Marcos, Texas 78666

512.393.7740

Lori.schmid@co.hays.tx.us

{___________________________________________________________}

Sent via e-mail

Mr. Chris Knowles

3

rd Court of Appeals

IN RE: Cause No. 15-0173; Robert M. Zapata, Appellant v Bank of America, N.A., Appellee

Dear Mr. Knowles:

In response to our telephone call this morning, please be advised that the Reporter’s 

Record has not been requested as of this date. Our telephone call was the first I 

was aware that an appeal had been filed in this matter.

Once the Reporter’s Record is requested, I will respectfully request an extension.

Thank you.

Lori Schmid

Certified Shorthand Reporter
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Maurice GREGORY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-8121.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 27, 2009.

*239Maurice Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit;

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Gregory seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his self-styled Fed.R.CrimJP. .36 motion as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); *Reid v. Ange-lone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gregory 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.*
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Garrett Thornburg, Chief Executive 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Garrett Thornburg

Garrett Thornburg
Chief Executive Officer
March 9, 2004
#### CONSOLIDATED TERMINAL CORPORATION v. HENDERSON et al.

No. 13534.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Jan. 6, 1942.

*495Daniel Partridge III and Charles Effin-ger Smoot, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

J. Richard Earle, of Washington, D. C., for defendant Jimmie R. Henderson.

R. Sidney Johnson, of Washington, D. C., for defendant Bertie S. Gillespie.

BAILEY, Associate Justice.

The motion to dismiss what is denominated in the complaint as a cross claim should be sustained. The complaint does not seek to enforce any lien upon the property sold to the defendant Henderson but to maintain this “cross claim,” would 'be to permit the plaintiff to bring in any party who may be indebted to the defendant Henderson. If the plaintiff should be successful in obtaining a judgment against defendant Henderson, it would not thereby have any priority over other creditors except as to any judgment lien to which it might be entitled.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2524 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain women’s 

footwear, valued over $23/pair, with a coated or laminated textile fabric. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty 

on certain women’s footwear, valued over $23/pair, with 

a coated or laminated textile fabric. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN’S FOOTWEAR, VALUED OVER 

4 $23/PAIR, WITH A COATED OR LAMINATED 

5 TEXTILE FABRIC. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.78 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 certain women’s footwear, valued over $23/pair, with a 

9 coated or laminated textile fabric) is amended— 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2524 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘$20/pair’’ and inserting ‘‘$23/ 

2 pair’’; and 

3 (2) by striking the date in the effective period 

4 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

7 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      REDHOOK ALE BREWERY, INCORPORATED
                FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
          PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated, a Washington corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this
certificate in connection with the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2003 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form
10-K").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 29, 2004


                                               BY:   /s/  Paul S. Shipman
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Paul S. Shipman
                                                   President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000820526
<NAME> LUND INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                            JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                                          696
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                41,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  2,108
<INVENTORY>                                                  22,345
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             68,976
<PP&E>                                                       30,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                               16,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              224,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        34,016
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       3
<COMMON>                                                        651
<OTHER-SE>                                                   87,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                224,361
<SALES>                                                      98,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             98,113
<CGS>                                                        70,232
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                91,023
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               (172)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            6,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 497
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    290
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                (225)
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (18)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0.00



</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STEPHEN HARRIS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 344

[ April 19, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Dennis D. Bailey , Judge; L.T. Case No. 05

- 16325CF10A

.

Stephen Harris, Indiantown, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L.

Melear, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER

, G ROSS and T AYLOR , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

[KPMG LOGO]

One Mellon Bank Center                                    Telephone 412 391 9710
Pittsburgh, PA 15219                                      Fax 412 391 8963





The Board of Directors
Laurel Capital Group, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
No. 33-080798 on Form S-8 of Laurel Capital Group, Inc. of our report dated
August 11, 2000, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition
of Laurel Capital Group, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 2000 and 1999, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2000,
which report is incorporated by reference in the June 30, 2000, annual report on
Form 10-K of Laurel Capital Group, Inc.


                                                      /s/ KPMG LLP



Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
September 28, 2000
<PAGE>   1
LAUREL CAPITAL GROUP, INC.
FORM 10-K
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         FOR THE         FOR THE         FOR THE
                                                       YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED
                                                      June 30, 2000   June 30, 1999   June 30, 1998
                                                      -------------   -------------   -------------
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>             <C>
NET INCOME                                              $3,408,000      $3,183,000      $3,051,000
                                                        ==========      ==========      ==========

BASIC EPS:

  WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                    2,107,711       2,188,014       2,176,893
                                                         ---------       ---------       ---------

  BASIC EARNING PER SHARE                                    $1.62           $1.45           $1.40
                                                             =====           =====           =====

DILUTED EPS:

  WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                    2,107,711       2,188,014       2,176,893
  DILUTIVE EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTIONS                 72,779         106,310         135,496
                                                            ------         -------         -------

  DILUTED WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING            2,180,490       2,294,324       2,312,389
                                                         ---------       ---------       ---------

  DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE                                 $1.56           $1.39           $1.32
                                                             =====           =====           =====
</TABLE>
----------

(1) NUMBER OF SHARES AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE EFFECTS OF
    THE THREE-FOR-TWO STOCK SPLIT PAID ON JANUARY 16, 1998.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-60656

Summary Calendar

 

ALLAN PLOTKIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:94-CV-553-WS

- - - - - - - - - -

May 6, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Allan Plotkin appeals the judgment upholding the final

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying a period

of disability and disability-insurance benefits. The ALJ did not

err by determining that Plotkin’s depression and headaches were

not severe limitations, and the ALJ applied the correct legal

standard to determine the severity of these limitations. See 

Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 293 (5th Cir. 1992). The ALJ
did not err by not considering Plotkin’s testimony regarding his

impairments, pain, and limitations to be credible. See id. at

296. There was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s

determinations, and the ALJ did not err as a matter of law. See

Fraga v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir. 1987).

To the extent that Plotkin argues that: 1) the ALJ erred in

his findings regarding Plotkin’s respiratory impairment; 2) the

ALJ did not consider additional medical evidence; 3) the

vocational expert improperly characterized Plotkin’s former

employment as light, skilled work, instead of medium, skilled

work; and 4) the ALJ failed in his responsibility to develop the

record after Plotkin’s good-faith effort to retrieve treatment

records for the relevant period of disability, these issues were

only mentioned, and not properly argued in Plotkin’s initial

brief. Plotkin argued the majority of these issues in his reply

brief. This court will not consider these issues. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (an appellant must

brief issues in initial brief to preserve them for appeal and

cannot raise them for the first time in a reply brief).

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Derek SMITH, also known as Derek Anthony Smith, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-30924

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 28, 2009.

Juan M. Masini, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Virginia Laughlin Schlueter, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

*401PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Derek Smith has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Smith has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Smith’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Smith’s motion to supplement his response is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual report of OneLink, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald
E. Eibesteiner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Ronald E. Eibensteiner

Ronald E. Eibensteiner
Chief Executive Officer
May 27, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 952 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 952

           To suspend temporarily the duty on diethylsulfate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2005

   Mr. Bond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on diethylsulfate.

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

SECTION 1. DIETHYLSULFATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.29.20    Diethylsulfate    Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     (CAS No. 64-67-                                                         31/2008          ''
                     5) (provided                                                                              .
                     for in
                     subheading
                     2920.90.50)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,349
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             136
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     28,439
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             677
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               701
<LOANS>                                        235,776
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 293,773
<DEPOSITS>                                     245,527
<SHORT-TERM>                                    13,535
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,063
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,030
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,443
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 293,773
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 20,518
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,940
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   112
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                22,570
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,042
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,492
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,078
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,730
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 14,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,858
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,858
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,360
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.08
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,476
<LOANS-PAST>                                        28
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,250
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,290
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      247
<RECOVERIES>                                        52
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,825
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,825
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TONY CAUDLE

No. 433P05

ORDER

The Attorney General’s Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of (1) vacating that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion ordering remand to the trial court for resentencing and (2) remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell,*361 N.C. 41, - S.E.2d-(2006). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects. Justice Timmons-Goodson recused.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of December, 2006.

s/Newsbv. J. For the Court