alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 589

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CR-13-892

TRACY LAND DAVIS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered OCTOBER 29, 2014

APPEAL FROM THE UNION COUNTY

CIRCUIT COURT

[NOS. CR-10-376 & CR-11-21]

HONORABLE HAMILTON H.

SINGLETON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

The Union County Circuit Court revoked appellant Tracy Davis’s suspended

imposition of sentence and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The sole issue on

appeal is whether the circuit court erred in denying Davis’s motion for continuance made on

the day of the revocation hearing. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Davis’s motion for

continuance. 

This case began in July 2010, when Davis was charged with violating the Arkansas Hot

Check Law. He entered a negotiated plea of guilty to this charge, and in May 2011, the

circuit court suspended imposition of Davis’s sentence for five years. Thereafter, the State

filed a petition to revoke Davis’s suspended sentence in April 2012; as a result of this petition,

the circuit court ordered a new five-year suspended sentence in December 2012. The State

filed a petition to revoke the new suspended sentence in May 2013, contending that Davis

had committed a new criminal offense, had failed to pay court costs, and had failed to pay
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 589

restitution. The new criminal offense involved the theft of coils from an air-conditioner unit

located at Washington Middle School in El Dorado. 

On June 6, 2013, the day of the revocation hearing, Davis moved for a continuance

in order to obtain some discovery regarding the new criminal offense, contending that he did

not commit the crime and that there had been other reports of criminal activity at the school

prior to his arrest. The circuit court denied the motion for a continuance. After a hearing,

the circuit court revoked Davis’s suspended sentence and sentenced him to ten years’

imprisonment.1 

Trial courts shall grant continuances only upon a showing of good cause; the denial of

a motion for continuance is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Mahomes v.

State, 2013 Ark. App. 215, 427 S.W.3d 123. On appeal, an appellant not only must

demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the continuance motion, but

must also show prejudice that amounts to a denial of justice. Id. 

This same issue has recently been answered in Davis’s companion revocation case,

Davis v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 452, where our court held that it was not an abuse of discretion

for the trial court to deny Davis’s motion for a continuance. For the reasons stated in the

earlier case, we affirm the denial of the continuance in this case. 

Affirmed.

VAUGHT and WOOD, JJ., agree.

Robert M. “Robby” Golden, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Pamela A. Rumpz, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

1Davis also had a revocation petition in another case that was granted at this hearing. 

The circuit court sentenced Davis to ten years’ imprisonment for each revocation, with the

sentences to be served consecutively.

2
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

         The undersigned executive officer of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc.
(the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the
three months ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




                        /s/ Douglas J. Timmerman
                        ------------------------------------------------------
                        Douglas J. Timmerman, Chairman of the Board, President
                        and Chief Executive Officer

November 11, 2002





                                       30
CERTIFICATION


Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Churchill Tax-Free Trust, do hereby certify to such
officer's knowledge, that:

The semi-annual report on Form N-CSR of Churchill Tax-Free Trust for the
period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Form N-CSR") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and information contained in the Form N-CSR fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Churchill Tax-Free Trust.

Dated: September 6, 2004		/s/  Lacy B. Herrmann
						-------------------------------
						Lacy B. Herrmann
						Chairman of the Board
						Churchill Tax-Free Trust

Dated:  September 6, 2004		/s/  Diana P. Herrmann
						----------------------------------
						Vice Chair, Trustee and President
						Churchill Tax-Free Trust

Dated:  September 6, 2004		/s/  Joseph P. DiMaggio
						------------------------------------
						Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
						Churchill Tax-Free Trust

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Churchill
Tax-Free Trust and will be retained by Churchill Tax-Free Trust and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
News United States 

Department 

of Labor 

Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212 

FOR DATA ONLY: (202) 691-5200 USDL 08-1712 

FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION: TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN 

Thaddious S. Foster: (202) 691-6443 THIS RELEASE IS EMBARGOED 

MEDIA CONTACT: (202) 691-5902 UNTIL 8:30 A.M. (EST), TUESDAY 

http://www.bls.gov/ppi NOVEMBER 18, 2008 

REPORT ON QUALITY CHANGES FOR 2009 MODEL VEHICLES 

Passenger Cars 

 The value of quality changes for a sample of nine 2009 model year domestically produced passenger 

cars included in the Producer Price Index (PPI) for October averaged $170.08, according to estimates by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor. This change represents 14.55 percent of the 

average $1,168.77 increase in manufacturers' invoice prices for this year's models as compared with last year's 

models. 

 The retail equivalent value of these quality changes averaged $185.18, representing 14.08 percent of the 

average $1,315.63 over-the-year increase in manufacturers’ suggested list prices. 

Light Trucks 

 The value of quality changes for a sample of seventeen 2009 model year domestically produced light 

trucks included in the PPI for October averaged $675.41. This change represents 40.65 percent of the average 

$1,661.73 increase in manufacturers' invoice prices for this year's models as compared with last year's models. 

 The retail equivalent value of quality changes for domestically produced light trucks averaged $746.38, 

representing 39.48 percent of the average $1,890.41 over-the-year increase in manufacturers’ suggested list 

prices. 

******** 

Estimates of the value of quality change are based on a review by the BLS of data supplied by producers for 

similarly equipped 2008 and 2009 domestically produced models priced for the Producer Price Index. Most of 

the estimates of quality changes in this release are derived from information supplied for the Producer Price 

Index for October. These data also form the basis of some of the new vehicle quality adjustments for the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, it should be noted that, effective with the release of data for January 

1999, changes made solely for the purpose of meeting air pollution standards are no longer considered quality 

improvements for CPI calculation purposes.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                        CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



March 26, 2001

The Wiser Oil Company
8115 Preston Road, Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75225

Gentlemen:

  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-44171, 33-62441, 33-44172, 333-22525, and 333-
15083) relating to the stock incentive plans of The Wiser Oil Company (the
Company) of our reserves estimates included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
(the Annual Report) of the Company for the year ended December 31, 1997, and to
the references to our firm included in the Annual Report. Our estimates of the
oil, condensate, natural gas liquids (shown collectively as "Oil and NGL"), and
natural gas reserves of certain properties owned by the Company are contained in
our reports entitled "Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2000 on Certain
Properties owned by the Wiser Oil Company-Proved Reserves". Reserves estimates
from our reports are included in the sections "Principal Oil and Gas
Properties," "Oil and Gas Reserves," and "Supplemental Financial  Information
for the years ending December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998 (unaudited)-Oil and Gas
Reserves." Also included in the third section mentioned above are reserves
estimates from our "Appraisal Report as of December 31, 1997 on Certain
Properties owned by the Wiser Oil Company-Proved Reserves." In the sections
"Summary Reserve and Operating Data" and "Oil and Gas Reserves," estimates of
reserves, revenue, and discounted present worth set forth in our above mentioned
reports have been combined with estimates of reserves, revenue, and discounted
present worth prepared by another petroleum consultant. We are necessarily
unable to verify the accuracy of the reserves, revenue, and present worth values
contained in the Annual Report when our estimates have been combined with those
of another firm.

                                Very truly yours,


                                /S/ DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON

                                DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of Rexel, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 which relate to the 1988 Stock
Incentive Plan (No. 33-32648) of our report, dated February 14, 1997, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule
of Rexel, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the years
ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994 which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to our firm as "Experts."

/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Miami, Florida
March 31, 1997
No. 1143.

#### Gardner, Trustee, *v.*New Jersey.

May 20, 1946.

*James D. Carpenter, Jr., Howard L. Kern*and *Alexander H. Elder*for petitioner.

*Walter D. Van Riper,*Attorney-General of New Jersey, and *Benjamin C. Van Tine*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
WAINOCO OIL CORPORATION
                  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Wainoco Oil Corporation (incorporated in Wyoming)

    662712 Alberta Ltd. (incorporated in Alberta)

    Wainoco Resources, Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),
      a subsidiary of Wainoco Oil Corporation.
    
    Wainoco Oil & Gas Company (incorporated in Delaware),
      a subsidiary of Wainoco Resources, Inc.

    Frontier Holdings Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),
      a subsidiary of Wainoco Oil Corporation.

        Frontier Oil Corporation (incorporated in Delaware) ,
          a subsidiary of Frontier Holdings Inc.
        
          Frontier Refining Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),
            a subsidiary of Frontier Oil Corporation.
        
          Frontier Oil and Refining Company (incorporated in Delaware),
            a subsidiary of Frontier Oil Corporation.
        
          Frontier Pipeline Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),
            a subsidiary of Frontier Oil Corporation.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0953. MARY EVANS v. JULIAN ARNOLD.

Following a bench trial,Julian Arnold obtained a judgment against MaryEvans

in the Municipal Court of Columbus, Muscogee County for $1,200.00, plus court

costs of $50.50. Evans filed a notice of appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Although final judgments of the Municipal Court of Columbus, Muscogee

County are directly appealable as if a judgment from a state or superior court, Ga. L.

1983, pp. 4453-4454, § 33 (c), appeals of all actions for damages in which the

judgment is $10,000.00 or less must be by application for discretionary appeal.

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6); see also Jennings v. Moss, 235 Ga. App. 357, 357 (509 SE2d

655) (1998). Evans’s failure to comply with the discretionary appeal procedure

deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is

hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 31, 2018

01/31/2018
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17698]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-55-2017]


Foreign-Trade Zone 38--Spartanburg County, South Carolina; 
Application for Expansion of Subzone 38A; BMW Manufacturing Company, 
LLC; Duncan, South Carolina

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, 
requesting an expansion of Subzone 38A on behalf of BMW Manufacturing 
Company, LLC, to include a site in Duncan, South Carolina. The 
application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-
Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of 
the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 16, 
2017.
    The applicant is requesting authority to expand Subzone 38A to 
include an additional site: Site 10 (10.68 acres)--1181 Howell Road, 
Duncan, Spartanburg County. No additional authorization for production 
activity has been requested at this time.
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Qahira El-Amin of 
the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the FTZ Board.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the 
address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 2, 2017. 
Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to October 16, 2017.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the ``Reading Room'' section of the 
FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0756666f6e756629426b2a466a6e6947737566636229606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6e7d7dedfc4d798f3da9bf7dbdfd8f6c2c4d7d2d398d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-5928.

    Dated: August 16, 2017.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17698 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          11,512
<SECURITIES>                                    64,429
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,443
<PP&E>                                          66,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,429
<BONDS>                                         19,519
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           232
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,668
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,605
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,627
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24,976)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        80
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (25,056)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   4,100
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21,623)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (3.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.41)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

        CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                           OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Timothy C. Lincoln, the Acting Principal Executive Officer of Le@p
Technology, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Le@p Technology, Inc;

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 small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons fulfilling 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 29, 2004


/s/ Timothy C. Lincoln
----------------------
Timothy C. Lincoln
Acting Principal Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Willie HOOKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-10188.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*519Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 31, 2012.

Howard David Sukenic, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joe Willie Hooks, White Deer, PA, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joe Willie Hooks appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hooks contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which changed the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. This contention fails. Amendment 750 did not alter the Guidelines range applicable to the drug quantity used to determine Hooks’s sentence. *See*U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 750. Because Amendment 750 did not lower Hooks’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, the district court lacked jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir.2009).

In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Hooks’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by failing to state reasons for denying his motion.

AFFIRMED.

**

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