alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Roger Lee DEAL, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. North CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-7473.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 27, 2012.

Decided: Jan. 4, 2013.

Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Lee Deal, Sr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) *205(2006). 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) (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 petition 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 Deal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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, Appellee, v. Carlos Ramon CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-2401-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 1, 2008.

*358Maria Elena Perez, Coral Gables, FL, for Petitioner.

Brenda K. Sannes, Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York (Glenn T. Suddaby, United States Attorney, and Edward P. Grogan, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), Syracuse, N.Y.

PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN and Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant, Carlos Ramon Cruz, pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York to aggravated illegal entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). He appeals from his sentence principally to an 82-month term of imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case, and the issues presented by this petition.

Cruz argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court (1) failed to grant a downward departure from the sentencing Guidelines based on prosecutorial delay, (2) failed to grant a downward departure from the sentencing Guidelines to account for the sentencing disparity created by the failure of Congress to provide for a “fast-track” program in the Northern District of New York, and (3) double counted his criminal history by using his prior convictions to enhance his criminal history category and to raise his offense level.

Cruz’s first argument is contrary to the law of this Circuit, under which we do not review a district court’s denial of a departure from the Guidelines scheme unless the “sentencing court misapprehended the scope of its authority to depart or the sentence was otherwise illegal.” *United States v. Valdez,*426 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir.2005). In making this determination, we apply a “strong presumption” that a district judge understands the circumstances under which he may exercise his discretion to depart downward from the Guidelines. *United States v. Brown,*98 F.3d 690, 694 (2d Cir.1996). In the instant case, there is no indication from the record that the district court misunderstood its authority to grant a Guidelines departure due to unreasonable prosecutorial delay. That the district court chose not to grant such a departure is, therefore, not reviewable.

Cruz’s second argument is foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Mejia,*461 F.3d 158 (2d Cir.2006). There', “[w]e jointed] other circuits in holding that a district court’s refusal to adjust a sentence to compensate for the absence of a fast-track program does not make a sentence unreasonable.” *Mejia,*461 F.3d at 164.

Cruz’s third argument fails under *United States v. Pereira,*465 F.3d 515 (2d Cir.2006), which held “that a district court does not err when it uses a prior offense to calculate *both*the offense level *and*the criminal history category to determine the correct Guidelines range in unlawful reentry cases.” *Id.*at 522 (emphasis in original).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 11

            COMMERCE GROUP CORP. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
            --------------------------------------------------

              SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE


                                         Years Ended March 31
                                   2000          1999            1998
                                   ----          ----            ----
BASIC
-----

Net income for primary
 income per common share      $  (396,232)   $   (90,266)   $    118,603
                              ============   ============   ============
Weighted average number
 of common shares outstanding
 during the year - basic       12,172,867     11,165,127      10,358,132
                              ============   ============   ============
Income (loss) per common
 share - basic                $    (.0326)   $    (.0081)   $      .0115
                              ============   ============   ============

DILUTED
-------

Net income for basic and
 diluted income per
 common share                 $  (396,232)   $   (90,266)   $    118,603
                              ============   ============   ============

Weighted average number
 of common shares used in
 calculating income per
 common share                  12,172,867     11,165,127      10,358,132

Add incremental shares
 representing:
 Shares issuable upon
 exercise of stock
 options                        1,254,900        977,400       1,327,400


Shares issuable upon
 payment of stock loans
 interest and other                     0         45,606          98,000


Stock rights                      625,235        625,235               0
                              ------------   ------------   ------------

Weighted average number
 of shares used in calcu-
 lation of fully diluted
 income per share              14,053,002     12,813,368      11,783,532
                              ============   ============   ============

Fully diluted income
 (loss) per common
 share                        $    (.0282)   $    (.0070)   $      .0100
                              ============   ============   ============
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8
Nos. 333-67527, 333-51607, 333-20673, 333-01789, 333-53802, 333-53804, 333-117249, and
333-130246) of Zale Corporation of our reports dated September 24, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Zale Corporation included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended July 31, 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Zale Corporation filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLPSeptember 24, 2008
Dallas, Texas

---



QuickLinks
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 501 

To make technical corrections to the Navajo water rights settlement in the 

State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2015 

Mr. UDALL (for himself and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To make technical corrections to the Navajo water rights 

settlement in the State of New Mexico, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Mexico Navajo 

5 Water Settlement Technical Corrections Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NAVAJO WATER SETTLEMENT. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 10302 of the Omnibus 

8 Public Land Management Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 407 

9 note; Public Law 111–11) is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 501 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Arrellano’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘Arellano’’; and 

3 (2) in paragraph (27), by striking ‘‘75–185’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘75–184’’. 

5 (b) DELIVERY AND USE OF NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER

6 SUPPLY PROJECT WATER.—Section 10603(c)(2)(A) of 

7 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub8 lic Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1385) is amended— 

9 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘Article III(c)’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘Articles III(c)’’; and 

11 (2) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ‘‘Article III(c)’’ 

12 and inserting ‘‘Articles III(c)’’. 

13 (c) PROJECT CONTRACTS.—Section 10604(f)(1) of 

14 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub15 lic Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1391) is amended by inserting 

16 ‘‘Project’’ before ‘‘water’’. 

17 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

18 10609 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

19 2009 (Public Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1395) is amended— 

20 (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), 

21 by striking ‘‘construction or rehabilitation’’ each 

22 place it appears and inserting ‘‘planning, design, 

23 construction, rehabilitation,’’; 

24 (2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ‘‘2 percent’’ 

25 and inserting ‘‘4 percent’’; and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 501 IS

1 (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ‘‘4 percent’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘2 percent’’. 

3 (e) AGREEMENT.—Section 10701(e) of the Omnibus 

4 Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111– 

5 11; 123 Stat. 1400) is amended in paragraphs (2)(A), 

6 (2)(B), and (3)(A) by striking ‘‘and Contract’’ each place 

7 it appears. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Edward L. Machulak, Chairman, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive,
 Operating and Financial Officer of Commerce Group Corp., (the Company), hereby
 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 Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004,
(the Form 10-K), 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.

Date:  May 10, 2004     /s/ Edward L. Machulak
        Edward L. Machulak
        Chairman, President, Treasurer,
        Chief Executive, Operating and
        Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>                 THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                         EXTRACTED FROM COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY FORM
                         10-K ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                         1999 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              731
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   386,040
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       8,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                434,998
<PP&E>                                        1,345,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                  704,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,185,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           163,471
<BONDS>                                         279,594
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         27,561
<OTHER-SE>                                      555,965
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,185,647
<SALES>                                         311,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                326,436
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   164,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               24,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 137,386
<INCOME-TAX>                                     50,331
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              87,055
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     87,055
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0


</TABLE>
#### Colton *v.*Colton.

*(Circuit Court, D. California.*

September 22, 1884.)

Will—Precatory Trust.

*Colton v. Colton, ante,*594, followed, demurrer sustained, and bill dismissed.

*W. W. & H. S. Foote*and *Grove L. Johnson,*for complainant,

*Crittenden Thornton*and *Stanly, Stoney & Hayes,*for defendant.

Sawyer, J.

This is a bill in equity seeking a decree declaring and enforcing a trust in favor of the sister of the late David D. Colton, deceased, claimed to arise out of the same clause of the will considered in the preceding case of *Colton*v. *Colton, ante,*594. The same construction must, of course, be given to the clause in this case as was adopted in the other. Dor reasons in that case stated, the demurrer to the bill must be sustained and the bill dismissed; and it is so ordered.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CEO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Lee Roy Mitchell, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cinemark USA,
Inc.; 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 operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly 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 quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly
report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this quarterly 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
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; andb)
    
    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:
November 10, 2004 CINEMARK USA, INC. By:
    
    /s/Lee Roy MitchellLee Roy MitchellChief Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

HOLLY BRASS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4171 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 27, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Neil A. Roddenbery, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, SALARIO, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
GoaAd:-6rimna{ Aflfl&ds
RECEIVED IN 

### &*: &nr£ gon^t*^* ^"—^nalappeals UWmUM/T OCT 26 2015

ZLkenA iiuo wit application o§ Uah&z &ypas a A. } 1.0*73 ckalU^i^Q QClewirfc evident^, Olttdc^cleMce. Urft avid a JlmbU.jeopardt^<?k(W,Z~, 

### 4e 7B^Ois4rid&udo£ Jj&rriS 6,y Mousim 7*XdS. Address b^dms Daniel. JiAncirckrk) Med c_W- \%frOiZ} by certifiedmail hfile . fhr$u<m~f b Jrt H.D'p secibn 3(b)^f^ke. C%iec)f^rimiut(rd9rco&daretAUo 

### cl letter adi/isl^ Clerk'of4ke 6ad%<& ofdri /1.0?-sec, S(b)^^e. C.CJ.

kjhiU did nothave any respond or notice, of'any KillerprofessioiAotand CdmiMoA C&uxiesyJ requestbt^ me.. ttkicL^al&o -fileda. UlrH[o\^Mavtdaw&S 

### to said Om&br Clerk tone on /fag- lt&B)$ receioed by /Jr~Ar$ur§n«pw(f 

### Certified woA^WfS 1090 dm qquz %bh} wlict IEreceived backonAt. Rl, ' M5. Clerk-has Called, to amply u?m A?. 7&&s &>SeofCrimmlProcedure, 

### dd«.11-0% Section 3(c), CDWecTme $ 7fa wv&wg XA nctkneu) mUty o^kou) 4ke l&jd is &fpli* or G&tyvi OvvCxt^erH^ to hdp me mme $is i&rmvd.. ,

_ ^^RW0: wy^-w^/j^ Ll,^J^. reiurwviQ back ^ritoppiicatid/i because itdees mf Comply wflt Jdicle. H-D*?, secfe/? 3$)* fa &
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of NATIONALTECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC  (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ending January 31, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Lloyd Blonder, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge:

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

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

| Dated: April 28, 2006 | /s/ LLOYD BLONDER                |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                       | Lloyd Blonder,                   |
| * *                   | *Senior  Vice President*         |
| * *                   | *and  Treasurer*                 |
| * *                   | *(Principal  Financial Officer)* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
ex10p2.htm


    
      
        

      

      Exhibit
10.2

      Registrar
Agreement dated June 27, 2008 between FutureFuel Corp. and Computershare
Investor Services 

      (Channel
Islands) Limited
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



                            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 the Quarterly Report of ThermoEnergy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis
C. Cossey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.

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 will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


/s/ Dennis C. Cossey
------------------------------
Dennis C. Cossey
Chief Executive Officer
May 17, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Damond NELSON, Defendant— Appellant.

No. 07-7372.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

Damond Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. .

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Damond Nelson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for clarification of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Damond,*No. 3:02-cr-00193-GCM (W.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 2007). 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.*