alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7770** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. BARKLEY GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 4:95

- cr - 00041

- H

- 8 )

Submitted : January 23, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Barkley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas Gray Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, R aleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Barkley Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider, which sought reconsideration of the denial o f a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012) . 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) (20 12 )
. 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 con stitutional 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 dispos itive 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 Gardner has not made the requisite showing . Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Gardner’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or3 successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200 , 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that
. . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court , that was previously unavailable
. 28 U.S.C. § 22 55(h ) (2012)
. Gardner’s c laims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argu ment would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
#### FIREMEN’S FUND INS. CO. v. HOFFMAN.

(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 11, 1903.)

No. 59.

John E. Snyder and Russell Duane, for plaintiff.

C. E. Montgomery and J. G. Johnson, for defendant.

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

In spite of the earnest and capable argument on behalf of the plaintiff, I am still of opinion that the supplemental charge did not go beyond the limits set by the federal courts to the right of a trial judge to express his opinion on the facts to the jury. When I sent for the jury, it was evident that another disagreement was impending, and I was naturally desirous to bring a prolonged litigation to what I regard as the proper end. I refrained from expressing my opinion in the principal charge, but when it became likely that a third long trial would be the outcome I felt justified in telling the jury what I thought about the evidence. The authorities cited on the brief of defendant's counsel seem to me to support his contention that the supplemental charge did not go too far.

A new trial is refused.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) of Spring Creek Capital Corp., (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Jan E. Chason, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date
      November 23, 2009
            By:
            /s/ Jan
      E. ChasonJan
      E. ChasonChief
      Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2  Co-Registrant (Commission File Number
000-30761):  UbiquiTel Inc. One West Elm Street Suite 400 Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428  Co-Registrant (Commission File Number
333-39950):  UbiquiTel Operating Company One West Elm Street Suite 400 Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428   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 UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James J. Volk, Chief
Financial Officer of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating 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 UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company.  UBIQUITEL
  INC./s/ James J. VolkJames J.
  VolkChief
  Financial OfficerUBIQUITEL
  OPERATING COMPANY/s/ James J. VolkJames J.
  VolkChief
  Financial OfficerFebruary 17,
  2004
#### **EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas B.Mackie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Douglas B. Mackie    |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Douglas  B. Mackie       |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| Date:  May 14, 2004 |   |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and will beretained by Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

31

----
**Exhibit 23**

 

***Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm***

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-102824) and in the Registration Statements onForm S-8 (File Nos. 2-67253, 2-98696, 33-18177, 2-82823, 33-36602, 33-36603, 333-9261, 333-32675, 33-57913, 333-60031, 333-60033, 333-83973, 333-42478, 333-65990, 333-97277, 333-107855, 333-107856, 333-109952 and 333-114803) of Wendy’sInternational, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in the 2005 Proxy Statement, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 31, 2005 relating to the financial statement schedule, whichappears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

Columbus, Ohio 

March 31, 2005
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                               LETTER OF CONSENT

                         CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
                                        
  As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 relating to the stock
incentive plans of The Wiser Oil Company (the "Company"), (Nos. 33-44171, 33-
62441, 33-44172, 333-22525 and 333-15083), of certain data from our report
entitled "The Wiser Oil Company Canada Ltd. Reserve Appraisal and Economic
Evaluation effective January 1, 1999" with respect to the oil and gas reserves
of the Company, the future net revenues therefrom and present values
attributable to these reserves included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and
to all references to our firm included in this Annual Report.

                      Yours very truly,

                      GILBERT LAUSTSEN JUNG ASSOCIATES LTD.

 
                      /s/ Wayne W. Chow, P. Eng.
                      Vice-President


April 12, 1999
Calgary, Canada
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3423 

To provide for the issuance of a ‘‘Gold Star Families Forever Stamp’’ to 

honor the sacrifices of families who have lost a loved one who was 

a member of the Armed Forces in combat. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself and Mrs. ERNST) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the issuance of a ‘‘Gold Star Families Forever 

Stamp’’ to honor the sacrifices of families who have 

lost a loved one who was a member of the Armed Forces 

in combat. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gold Star Families 

5 Forever Stamp Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3423 IS

1 (1) Gold Star mothers and fathers and families 

2 are true national heroes, who deserve our deepest 

3 gratitude and respect; and 

4 (2) the extraordinary contribution of Gold Star 

5 mothers and fathers and families is beyond measure, 

6 not merely for their loss, but the comfort they self7 lessly provide others and their model of service and 

8 sacrifice. 

9 SEC. 3. GOLD STAR FAMILIES FOREVER STAMP. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to continue to honor the 

11 sacrifices of families who have lost a loved one who was 

12 a member of the Armed Forces in combat, the Postmaster 

13 General shall provide for the issuance of a forever stamp 

14 suitable for that purpose. 

15 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this Act, the term 

16 ‘‘forever stamp’’ means a definitive stamp which meets the 

17 postage required for first-class mail up to one ounce in 

18 weight, and which retains full validity for that purpose 

19 even if the rate of that postage is later increased. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The stamp described in sub21 section (a) shall be issued beginning as soon as practicable 

22 after the date of enactment of this Act and shall not there23 after be discontinued. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0 630 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. MICHAEL ROBERT LONG ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 20 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 13 2020

04/13/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0630
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 7, 2020

No. 04-20-00495-CV

IN RE Alicia P. WILLEFORD

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI11792

Richard Edward Price, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

Proceeding 

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice 

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice 

Irene Rios, Justice 

On October 6, 2020, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for stay

pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. This court believes a serious

question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the petition in this

court no later than October 22, 2020. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 52.4.

 Relator’s request for a stay of trial court proceedings is GRANTED. All proceedings in

the underlying case are STAYED pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus.

It is so ORDERED October 7, 2020.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018-CI-11792, styled in the Matter of the Marriage of Alicia P. 

Willeford and Jimmy D. Willeford, pending in the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The 

Honorable Richard Price issued the order at issue in this original proceeding.
#### SZYMANSKI et al. v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Dec. 23, 1952.

Irving C. Rosenkrantz, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Edward R. Brumley, New York City, for defendant.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Frank Szymanski, an infant, by his guardian ad litem, Edward Szymanski, sues the defendant for injuries which the infant sustained when he was struck by one of defendant’s trains.

The plaintiff moves “for an order directing the defendant to produce and permit the inspection and copying of any statements not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence relating to any of the matters permitted by Rule 26(b) and which are in its possession, custody or control”.

Were this motion to be decided solely on the notice of motion, it would have to be denied as failing to designate the documents involved.1 However, limitation of the scope of the discovery sought is found in the moving affidavit wherein it appears that “defendant’s representatives obtained a statement from the infant plaintiff and/or his mother shortly after the accident herein occurred”. Accordingly the motion will be treated as one for discovery and copying of the statements obtained from the infant and his mother.

*83Defendant asserts these to be “privileged” statements because they “were taken by a special representative of the Claim Department under the jurisdiction of defendant’s Law Department in preparation of a defense to a claim or suit.” It is now settled that statements thus obtained are not “work product” of the defendant’s counsel.2

Plaintiff’s counsel’s assertion on argument that no copies of the statement thus made by the plaintiff and his mother, were ever delivered to them by defendant remains undenied. I hold this to be good cause for permitting plaintiff to now examine and copy them.

If plaintiff in the deposition of defendant to be soon taken ascertains the identity of other witnesses and establishes his inability after appropriate effort to obtain their versions of the accident, he may move for discovery of statements made by them to defendant, not privileged.

Settle order.

1

. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 34(1), 28 U.S.C.A.

2

. Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., Vol. 4, par. 26.23 [8], p. 1136 et seq. and cases cited.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           92707
<SECURITIES>                                     82647
<RECEIVABLES>                                   305179
<ALLOWANCES>                                     11341
<INVENTORY>                                     270519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                805208
<PP&E>                                         6131933
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2447575
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4898787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           405577
<BONDS>                                        1512621
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        729212
<OTHER-SE>                                     1549356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4898787
<SALES>                                        2982288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2980582
<CGS>                                          2161194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2161194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                509965
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               93272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 246600
<INCOME-TAX>                                     83900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             162700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    162700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.60
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 12.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Lawrence C.P. Li, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Kowloon-CantonRailway Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the companyand have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered bythe annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: May 31, 2007                                             /s/ Lawrence C.P. Li   Name:  Lawrence C.P. Li   Title:  Director, Finance
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          46,511
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,784
<ALLOWANCES>                                       904
<INVENTORY>                                     34,347
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,882
<PP&E>                                         107,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,425
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           219
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   225,596
<SALES>                                        336,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               339,231
<CGS>                                          207,088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                88,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   281
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,641
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,351
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,290
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,290
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39
        

</TABLE>