alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Antonio ROBERTSON, a/k/a Lil Sean, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7629.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Sean Antonio Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Charlene Rene Day, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sean Antonio Robertson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robertson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Robertson’s motion for 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

LAWRENCE L. MAYES, 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA; 

COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA, 

 Respondents-Appellees. 

No. 13-6280 

(D.C. No. 5:13-CV-01080-C) 

(W.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

 

Before KELLY, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Lawrence L. Mayes seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to secure review 

of a district court order dismissing his “Petition of Notice of Intent to Appeal from 

the Court of Criminal Appeals” as a second-or-successive habeas petition lacking the 

authorization required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). The district court’s disposition 

was indisputably correct and this effort to appeal that disposition is frivolous. We 

deny a COA, dismiss the appeal, and deny Mr. Mayes’ motion for leave to proceed 

on appeal in forma pauperis. 

 

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 20, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

 The “petition” Mr. Mayes filed in the district court challenges the same 2005 

armed robbery conviction that he has unsuccessfully challenged numerous times in 

pleadings filed both with the district court and this court. The district court properly 

held that the novel label he applied to this latest pleading—styling it as an inapt 

“appeal” from proceedings in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals—did not 

alter the fact that it was a second-or-successive habeas petition. As such, it is subject 

to the constraints in § 2244(b), in particular to the jurisdictional requirement of 

pre-authorization by this court under § 2244(b)(3), with which Mr. Mayes did not 

comply.1

 Dismissal was undebatably the appropriate disposition by the district court 

and, thus, a COA is unwarranted. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 

(holding in pertinent part that to obtain a COA the petitioner-appellant must show 

“that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in 

its procedural ruling”). 

Accordingly, we deny a COA and dismiss this appeal. Mr. Mayes’ motion for 

leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is also denied. We remind Mr. Mayes 

that his obligation to remit the full amount of the filing fee persists despite our denial 

 

 

1

 We note that a separately pursued motion from Mr. Mayes seeking such 

authorization for claims that are also asserted in the “petition” here was recently 

denied as meritless by this court. 
- 3 - 

of a COA and dismissal of this appeal. See Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 714-15 

(10th Cir. 2006). 

 Entered for the Court 

 ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3425 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

depreciation rules for property used predominantly within an Indian 

reservation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the depreciation rules for property used predominantly within an Indian reservation, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF DEPRECIATION 

4 RULES FOR PROPERTY ON INDIAN RESERVA5 TIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (j) of section 168 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

8 paragraph (9). 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3425 IS

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

2 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

3 December 31, 2016. 

4 SEC. 2. REVOCABLE ELECTION TO HAVE SPECIAL DEPRE5 CIATION RULES NOT APPLY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (8) of section 168(j) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik8 ing the second sentence. 

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

10 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

11 December 31, 2016. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Josue Encarnacion, Petitioner, v Brian S. Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respon*1061dent.

[852 NYS2d 854]

At the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting illicit drug use. After that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination in issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner has been afforded all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is now dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Ward v Goord,*43 AD3d 1257, 1257 [2007]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
No. 1007.

#### Jordan *v.*Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation et al.

May 27, 1946.

*G. P. North*for petitioner.

*Edgar M. Morsman, Jr.*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                          32,900
<SECURITIES>                                     6,420
<RECEIVABLES>                                      577
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,365
<PP&E>                                          27,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,515)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,417
<BONDS>                                          5,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       140,338
<OTHER-SE>                                    (99,063)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,837
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,802)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (139)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,802)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,802)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,802)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7608

TIMOTHY LEE CREED,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; J. V.

TURLINGTON,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-96-932-3)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Lee Creed, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Kendrick Cleveland,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Lee Creed seeks to appeal the district court's order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Creed v. North Carolina Attorney General, No.

CA-96-932-3 (M.D.N.C. July 18, 1997). We also deny Creed's motion

for appointment of counsel. 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
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Michael C. Nasser, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jewett Cameron Trading Company Ltd;

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 operation and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date:



5.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



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; and

6.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: January 16, 2004

/s/ MICHAEL C. NASSER

Michael C. Nasser, Corporate Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3497 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3497

To provide the force and effect of law for certain regulations relating 
  to the taking of double-crested cormorants to reduce depredation at 
          aquaculture facilities and protect public resources.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2016

Mr. Cotton (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. 
    Shelby) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide the force and effect of law for certain regulations relating 
  to the taking of double-crested cormorants to reduce depredation at 
          aquaculture facilities and protect public resources.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safeguard Aquaculture Farmers Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE TAKING OF DOUBLE-CRESTED 
              CORMORANTS.

    (a) Force and Effect.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (b), section 21.47 
        of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the 
        date of enactment of this Act), shall have the force and effect 
        of law.
            (2) Public notice.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred 
        to in this section as the ``Secretary''), acting through the 
        Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
        (referred to in this section as the ``Director''), shall notify 
        the public of the authority provided by paragraph (1) in a 
        manner determined appropriate by the Secretary.
    (b) Sunset.--The authority provided by subsection (a)(1) shall 
terminate on the date that is the earlier of--
            (1) the effective date of a regulation promulgated by the 
        Director after the date of enactment of this Act to control 
        depredation of double-crested cormorant populations; or
            (2) 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section limits the 
authority of the Director to promulgate regulations relating to the 
taking of double-crested cormorants under any other law.
                                 <all>
```
No. 1080.

#### McRae *v.*Boykin.

May 13, 1946.

*William G. McRae, pro se.*

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
This matter having been opened to the Court on the application of defendant Michael F.

Durante, through his counsel (Cathy Fleming, Esq,, appearing, tbr a modification ofthe terms and

conditions of pretrial release, and the application having been opposed by the government

(Anthony Mahajan, AUSA, appearing), and tbr good cause shown:

WHEREFORE, it is on this /4day of September, 2011

IT 15 HEREBY ORDERED that the Order Setting Conditions of Release, filed on March

24, 2011, by the Honorable Michael A. Shipp, U.S. Magistrate Judge, be and hereby is modified to

vacate the requirement that Durante “abstain from treating any current patients;”

IT IS FURTHER 1RDEREDJat Durante may retuqi to the practice ofmedicine upon

approval lYfhe Board of’Medical Examiner’shouId such approval bigranteerproper

i’

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Durante shall in no event write any prescriptions: and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other terms and conditions ofthe foregoing Order

remain in full force and effect.

—;:,

HON ST&\LEY-eHESLR

United States District Judge

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME SECTIONS
FOUND IN EXHIBIT 13 OF THE COMPANY'S 10K FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0000108215
<NAME>                         WOODHEAD INDUSTRIES
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           OCT-3-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                OCT-3-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                           2,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,089
<INVENTORY>                                     19,431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,636
<PP&E>                                         114,076
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,321
<BONDS>                                         45,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,032
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,941
<SALES>                                        147,560
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,560
<CGS>                                           84,002
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,002
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,563
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,633
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,930
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,930
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Williams Industries, Incorporated
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the Fiscal year ending July 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to and for purposes of
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.

October 17, 2006
/s/ Frank E. Williams, III
--------------------------
Frank E. Williams, III
Chairman of the Board,
President,
Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer

/s/ Christ H. Manos
-------------------
Christ H. Manos
Treasurer, Controller
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3539 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3539

   To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide that any 
   estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint 
  Committee on Taxation shall include costs relating to servicing the 
                              public debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2016

   Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Perdue, and Mr. Lee) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                               the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide that any 
   estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint 
  Committee on Taxation shall include costs relating to servicing the 
                              public debt.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Budgetary Accuracy in Scoring 
Interest Costs Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. CBO AND JCT ESTIMATES TO INCLUDE DEBT SERVICING COSTS.

    (a) In General.--Title IV of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is amended by 
inserting after section 402 the following:

              ``estimates to include debt servicing costs

    ``Sec. 403. Any estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402, and any estimate prepared by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, shall include, to the extent practicable, the 
costs (if any) of servicing the debt subject to limit under section 
3101 of title 31, United States Code.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 402 the 
following:

``403. Estimates to include debt servicing costs.''.
                                 <all>
```