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### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-6213



# 
J AMES E DWARD E LLERBE ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.

(CR-97-100-BR) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: May 3, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELJames Edward Ellerbe, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: James Edward Ellerbe appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a court order and denying reconsideration. Ellerbe’s motion relates to his conviction for aiding and abetting a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994) and 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001), which we affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v. Ellerbe , No. 98-4058, 1999 WL 64289 (4th Cir. Feb. 11, 1999) (unpublished).The proper basis to seek to invalidate a conviction is a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Because Ellerbe has previously filed a motion seeking relief under § 2255, see United States v. Ellerbe , No. 00-7472, 2000 WL 1862099 (4th Cir. Dec. 20, 2000) (unpublished), however, he must seek authorization from this Court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) prior to filing a successive motion under § 2255. Because Ellerbe has not sought this authorization, and counsel stated that Ellerbe had already received a complete copy of the documents he sought in the present motion, the district court properly denied his motion. Accordingly, we deny Ellerbe’s several motions for appointment ofcounsel on appeal and affirm the orders of the district court. 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.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. E LLERBE
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Donald M. Boone, certify that:

1.

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

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 circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

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

4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:

September 15, 2006

By:

Donald M. Boone

Donald M. Boone,

President/CEO/Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6199

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WINSTON R. IRONS, a/k/a Tony,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00016-JPB-RWT-1)

Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: June 3, 2021

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Winston R. Irons, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Winston R. Irons appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act 

of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review a district 

court’s ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021).

The district court may reduce a term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” “In 

the context of the COVID-19 outbreak, courts have found extraordinary and compelling 

reasons for compassionate release when an inmate shows both a particularized 

susceptibility to the disease and a particularized risk of contracting the disease at his prison 

facility.” United States v. Feiling, 453 F. Supp. 3d 832, 841 (E.D. Va. 2020) (citing cases). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Irons failed to make the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REXEL, INC.
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          10,013
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  141,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,680
<INVENTORY>                                    102,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               263,049
<PP&E>                                          72,588
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 375,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,563
<BONDS>                                         37,219
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,258
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   375,493
<SALES>                                      1,120,688
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,120,688
<CGS>                                          890,605
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  890,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   827
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,679
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,579
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,325)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74
        

</TABLE>
###                                                  AMENDED AND RESTATED
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 38708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17178]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1330 (Final)]


Dioctyl Terephthalate (DOTP) From Korea; Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject 
investigation, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by 
reason of imports of dioctyl terephthalate (``DOTP'') from Korea, 
provided for in subheading 2917.39.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States, that have been found by the Department of 
Commerce (``Commerce'') to be sold in the United States at less than 
fair value (``LTFV'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Vice Chairman David S. Johanson dissenting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1673d(b)), instituted this investigation effective June 30, 2016, 
following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce 
by Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport, Tennessee. The Commission 
scheduled the final phase of the investigation following notification 
of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of DOTP from 
Korea were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of 
the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final 
phase of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be 
held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice 
in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of 
April 12, 2017 (82 FR 17691). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, 
on June 13, 2017, and all persons who requested the opportunity were 
permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 735(b) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its 
determination in this investigation on August 9, 2017. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4713 (August 2017), 
entitled Dioctyl Terephthalate (DOTP) from Korea: Investigation No. 
731-TA-1330 (Final).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 9, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-17178 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6199

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. WINSTON R. IRONS, a/k/a Tony , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Elkins

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 2:12

- cr - 00016

- JPB

- RWT

- 1 )

Submitted : May 25, 2021 Decided: June 3, 2021

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Winston R. Irons, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Winston R. Irons appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. Un ited
States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021)

. The district court may reduce a term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction

. ” “In the context of the COVID

- 19 outbreak, courts have found extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release when an inmate shows both a particularized susceptibility to the disease and a particularized risk of contracting the disease at his prison facility.” United States v. Feili ng , 453 F. Supp. 3d 832, 841 (E.D. Va. 2020) (citing cases). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Irons failed to make the requisite showing. A ccordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.
AFFIRMED
Order entered May 22, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01689-CV

INWOOD NATIONAL BANK, Appellant

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE AND U.S. TRUST BANK, BANK OF 

AMERICA PRIVATE WEALTH MANAGEMENT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-04907

ORDER

We GRANT U.S. Trust Bank, Bank of America Private Wealth Management’s request, 

in their May 20, 2014 motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief, to vacate the current 

briefing deadline because the record is incomplete. We ORDER Sheretta Martin, Official Court 

Reporter of the 162nd Judicial District Court, to file the record of the December 16, 2013 

evidentiary hearing no later than June 6, 2014. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to remove 

the current briefing deadlines. Appellants’ brief(s) shall be filed within thirty days from the date 

the missing record is filed. We further DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this 

order to Ms. Martin and the parties.

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
No. 1112.

#### Moffitt *v.*United States.

May 27, 1946.

*John B. Dudley*and *Robert K. Everest*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Robert S. Erdahl*and *Beatrice Rosenberg*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
---

Exhibit 32.1








Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stratus Properties Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), William H. Armstrong III, as Chairman of the Board, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:





(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.





Dated:  May 17, 2010








/s/ William H. Armstrong III


William H. Armstrong III


Chairman of the Board,


President & Chief Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 15.1











November 14, 2003

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated November 3, 2003 on our review of interim financial information of Stratus Properties Inc. for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2003 and 2002 and included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, is incorporated by reference in the Companys Registration Statements (File Nos. 33-78798, 333-31059, 333-52995 and 333-104288).

Yours very truly,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### The Harris Automatic Press Co., Respondent, *v.*The Demarest Pattern Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

June, 1905.)

Chattel mortgage — Right to foreclose — Pleading — Answer of corporation— Plaintiff’s right to sue — Waiver.

A chattel mortgage need not declare that the mortgagee’s right to foreclose upon default is not taken away by a provision for entry, possession and sale upon default in the payments of any of the installments therein conditioned to be paid.

A defendant answering the complaint of a foreign corporation by a general denial upon information and belief, even as to its own incorporation, waives its right to raise the question of plaintiff’s right to sue because it failed to plead its compliance with the law regarding permission to do business in this State.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered in favor of the plaintiff after trial without a jury.

*625Benjamin Franklin, for appellant.

Chrystie, Brightman & Douglas (Archibald Douglas, of counsel), for respondent.

MacLean, J.

On December 10, 1903, the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff a chattel mortgage, providing for entry, possession, and sale upon default in the payment of any of the installments therein conditioned, at stated times, to be paid. The defendant thereafter defaulted, the plaintiff, as was its right, foreclosed, a right not taken from it by provision for sale under the power mentioned (Briggs v. Oliver, 68 N. Y. 336, 339), and it was not necessary that the mortgage should so declare. Bragelman v. Daue, 69 N. Y. 69, 74. Nor was it reversible fault that the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, failed to plead its compliance with our laws in regard to permission to do business here, for the defendant, answering with a general denial upon information and belief, even as to its own incorporation, waived its right to raise the'question. C. R. Parmele Co. v. Haas, 171 N. Y. 519, 583.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Scott and Dtgro, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC  ACCOUNTING FIRM**

  To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees  Saturna Investment Trust  We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of the  Sextant Short-Term Bond Fund, Sextant Bond Income Fund, Sextant Growth Fund  and Sextant International Fund, each a series of the Saturna Investment Trust,  including the schedules of investments as of November 30, 2004, and therelated  statements of operations for the year then ended, and the changes in netassets  for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each  of the five years then ended. These financial statements and financialhighlights  are the responsibility of the Trust's management. Our responsibility is  to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights  based on our audits.  We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PublicCompany  Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan andperform the audit to obtain reasonable  assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are  free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,  evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30,  2004, by correspondence with the custodian and broker. Our audit also includesassessing  the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe  that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.   In our opinion the financial statements and financial highlights referred to  above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position ofSextant  Short-Term Bond Fund, Sextant Bond Income Fund, Sextant Growth Fund, andSextant  International Fund, as of November 30, 2004, the results of their operations  for the year then ended, and the changes in their net assets for each of the  two years then ended and their financial highlights for each of the five years  in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generallyaccepted in the United States of America.

/s/signature

**TAIT, WELLER&  BAKER**

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  December 17, 2004
**EXHIBIT 99(i)  **FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS 
     Statements contained in this report may be considered to be forward-looking. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor for forward-looking statements. The Company wishes to ensure that such forward-looking statements are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements to comply with the terms of the safe harbor under the Act. The Company notes that a variety of important factors could cause the Company's actual results and experience to differ materially from the anticipated results or other expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements. The important factors that may affect the operations, performance, development and results of the Company's business include the following factors: 
·
global and local business and economic conditions;  
·
fluctuations in currency exchange and interest rates;  
·
ingredient, labor and other operating costs;  
·
insufficient or under-utilization of manufacturing capacity;  
·
destruction of all or part of manufacturing facilities;  
·
labor strikes or unrest;  
·
political or economic instability in local markets;  
·
war or acts of terrorism;  
·
competition and other industry trends;  
·
retention of preferred retail space;  
·
effectiveness of marketing campaigns or new product introductions;  
·
consumer preferences, spending patterns and demographic trends;  
·
legislation and governmental regulation; and  
·
accounting policies and practices.  
     We caution the reader that the above list of factors may not be exhaustive. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.****