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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY CANNON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00048-CMH-3; 1:16-cv00739-CMH)

Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 27, 2020

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Patricia T. Giles, Assistant United States Attorney, Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Cannon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 motion 

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 Cannon has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Cannon’s 

motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I,Charles P. Slacik, Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer, certifythat:

 

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Watson Pharmaceuticals,Inc.;

 

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

 

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

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

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

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

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

 

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 

Date:July 31, 2003

 
|   | **/s/  CHARLES P. SLACIK**                         |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Charles P. Slacik                                       |
|   | Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer)                           |

 

 

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,844

EX PARTE HEATH JOHNSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 007-80174-97-A IN THE 7 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM SMITH COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to escape, and

originally received deferred adjudication community supervision. His guilt was later adjudicated,

and he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to appeal because his payment for preparation

of the trial record was never noted as received by the Smith County District Clerk, although the

money order was cashed. Applicant’s appeal was dismissed because he had not timely paid for
preparation of the trial record.

We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court has determined that Applicant’s payment was received by the Smith County Probation

Department, and was never forwarded to the Smith County District Clerk. We find, therefore, that

Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction

in Cause No. 007-80174-97-A from the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County. Applicant is

ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then,

with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the

sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that,

should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice

of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: February 13, 2008

Do Not Publish
No. 1166.

#### Gause *v.*Ragen, Warden.

May 13, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois, denied.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 142 (Monday, July 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17787]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[MT-020-1010-PO]


Notice of Public Meeting, Eastern Montana Resource Advisory 
Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior, Montana, Billings and 
Miles City Field Offices.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern 
Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.

DATES: The next regular meeting of the Eastern Montana Resource 
Advisory Council will be held on August 27, 2009 in Miles City, MT. The 
meeting will start at 8 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m. 
When determined, the meeting location will be announced in a news 
release.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Jacobsen, Public Affairs 
Specialist, BLM Miles City Field Office, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles 
City, Montana, 59301. Telephone: (406) 233-2831.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Council advises the Secretary 
of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management on a variety of 
planning and management issues associated with public land management 
in Montana. At these meetings, topics will include: Miles City and 
Billings Field Office manager updates, subcommittee briefings, work 
sessions and other issues that the council may raise. All meetings are 
open to the public and the public may present written comments to the 
Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for 
hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to 
comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may 
be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, 
such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other 
reasonable accommodations should contact the BLM as provided above.

    Dated: July 14, 2009.
M. Elaine Raper,
Field Manager.
[FR Doc. E9-17787 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    Fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934;(2)
    
    That the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: March 15, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ ANTHONY SPIERAnthony SpierChairman, President &Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 15, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ JAMES F. BRACEJames F. BraceVice President, Secretary, Treasurer,& Chief Financial Officer
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Kirsten T. Lewis, * From the 118th District

Court of Howard County,

Trial Court No. 14035.

Vs. No. 11-15-00113-CR * June 11, 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered Kirsten T. Lewis’s motion to dismiss her appeal 

and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with 

this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
 AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION 
 The definition of “Base Conversion
Price” is deleted. 
 Section 7(b) is amended so that, as amended, Section 7(b) shall read as follows: 

The Corporation or any Subsidiary shall not, on or after March 21, 2013 (prior to such date, the pre-amendment provision applies),
at any time while Preferred Stock is outstanding, sell or grant any option to purchase or sell or grant any right to reprice, or otherwise dispose of or issue (or announces any sale, grant or any option to purchase or other disposition), any Common
Stock or Common Stock Equivalents entitling any Person to acquire shares of Common Stock at an effective price per share that is lower than the then Conversion Price (such issuances, collectively, a “Dilutive Issuance”) (for
purposes of clarification, if the holder of the Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents so issued shall at any time, whether by operation of purchase price adjustments, reset provisions, floating conversion, exercise or exchange prices or
otherwise, or due to warrants, options or rights per share which are issued in connection with such issuance, be entitled to receive shares of Common Stock at an effective price per share that is lower than the Conversion Price, such issuance shall
be deemed to have occurred for less than the Conversion Price on such date of the Dilutive Issuance). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restriction under this Section 7(b) shall not apply in respect of an Exempt Issuance. For purposes of this
Section 7(b), if the Corporation enters into a Variable Rate Transaction, the Corporation shall be deemed to have issued Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents at the lowest possible conversion price at which such securities may be converted
or exercised when determining whether such issuance is a Dilutive Issuance.
|    |                                                                                                      |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Whirlpool Corporation; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 circumstance under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |

|                    |
|--------------------|
|                    |  |  |
| Date:              | February 21, 2013 |
|               |   |   |
| /s/ JEFF M. FETTIG |
| Name:              | Jeff M. Fettig |
| Title:             | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 317 Agreed to House (ATH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 317

       Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of 
    Representative from the Second Congressional District of Hawaii.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2003

 Mr. Ney submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of 
    Representative from the Second Congressional District of Hawaii.

    Resolved, That the election contest relating to the office of 
Representative from the Second Congressional District of Hawaii is 
dismissed.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         3209893
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   139149
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          827453
<DEPRECIATION>                                  447768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                17557093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        6196579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         94600
<OTHER-SE>                                     6111640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  17557093
<SALES>                                        4630523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5348609
<CGS>                                           449791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   619698
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2648791
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              631356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2080160
<INCOME-TAX>                                    826000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             807755
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    807755
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.55
        

</TABLE>
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statement  on Form  S-3  (No.  33-54831  and No.  33-63845)  and  Form  S-8 (No.
33-54801, No. 33-56281,  No. 333-64217,  No. 333-36985 and No. 333-64784) of WHX
Corporation  of our  report  dated  March  9,  2004  relating  to the  financial
statements of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Pittsburgh, PA
April 13, 2004
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel TORRES-GUARDADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-36095.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2012.

Filed Dec. 19, 2012.

Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jose Angel Torres-Guardado, Manchester, KY, pro se.

Before: TALLMAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON, District Judge.*

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Jose Angel Torres-Guardado appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. At issue is whether appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to appeal the inadequate factual basis for Torres-Guardado’s Rule 11 guilty plea to the charge of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and we affirm.

Analyzing Torres-Guardado’s ineffective assistance claim under *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), we agree with the district court’s decision that Torres-Guar-dado has failed to demonstrate that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Specifically, Torres-Guardado has not established that he suffered prejudice as a result of his counsel’s failure to appeal the inadequate factual basis for his guilty plea.1 Documents produced by the *655government in discovery show that Torres-Guardado purchased drugs from a co-conspirator in Denver. Torres-Guardado also admitted to the magistrate judge that he did not manufacture the drugs himself. Based on the entire record, Torres-Guar-dado has failed to show a reasonable probability that but for the alleged Rule 11 error he would not have entered the guilty plea. *See United States v. Dominguez Benitez,*542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004); *United States v. Monzon,*429 F.3d 1268, 1271-72 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

1

. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is analyzed under the two-part test developed in *Strickland.*The "defendant must show that *655counsel’s performance was deficient” and "the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”' *Strickland,*466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The court may address these prongs in either order and it need not analyze both parts if the defendant cannot establish either prong. *Id.*U.S. 466 at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
Exhibit
        23
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
  
 We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on
        Forms S-3 (No. 33-52999, No. 33-55307, No. 333-56277, No. 333-75676, No.
        333-112501 and No. 333-137065), on Form S-4 (No. 333-138997, as amended)
        and on
        Forms S-8 (No. 333-56024, as amended, No. 333-68506, No. 333-30257, No.
        333-87050, No. 333-91358 and No. 333-116184) of Whitney Holding Corporation
        of
        our report dated February 28, 2007 relating to the financial statements,
        management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal accounting control over
        financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
        reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.
 
 
 /s/
        PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
 New
        Orleans, Louisiana
 March
        1,
        2007


94
REPORT
AND CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








The Board
of Directors and Shareholders


Wells-Gardner
Electronics Corporation:








The
audits referred to in our report dated March 18, 2008, included the related
financial statement schedule as of December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 and for
the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, included in Form 10-K.
This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial
statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement
schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
2-72090, 2-09137, 33-63920, 33-61535, 33-02981, and 333-72629) on Form S-8 of
Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation of our report dated March 18, 2008, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Wells-Gardner Electronics
Corporation as of December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for
the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005 and the related financial
statement schedule, which reports appear in or are incorporated by reference in
this annual report on Form 10-K of Wells-Gardner Electronics
Corporation.








/s/
Blackman Kallick, LLP


Chicago,
Illinois


March 18,
2008