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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6190

HARVEY PATRICK SHORT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DEBRA K. SAUERS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:12-cv-06254)

Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey Patrick Short, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Harvey Patrick Short seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on 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) (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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Short has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
J-S64007-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

DHRUV PATEL

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 682 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered March 21, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0001435-2016

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD*, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 08, 2017

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from an order 

suppressing the results of a blood test administered after Appellee, Dhruv 

Patel, was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. The 

Commonwealth argues Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 

(2016), does not invalidate Pennsylvania’s doctrine of implied consent when 

the defendant is charged with driving under the influence of narcotics.1

However, the Commonwealth concedes that Commonwealth v. Ennels, 

____________________________________________

1 The factual record before the suppression court consisted entirely of a six 

sentence stipulation of facts and the DL-26 (Chemical Testing Warnings) 

form signed by Patel. Neither of these documents reference the narcotics 

which were revealed in the blood test. 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S64007-17

- 2 -

167 A.3d 716 (Pa. Super. 2017), controls the outcome in this case. See 

Appellant’s Brief, at 4. The Commonwealth indicates that it desired to 

preserve the issue while its petition for reargument en banc in Ennels was 

pending. 

That petition was denied, and Ennels thus stands as controlling 

precedent in this case. See Sorber v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 680 

A.2d 881, 882 (Pa. Super. 1996). As the Commonwealth recognizes, Ennels

rejected the argument it raises in this appeal. We therefore conclude that no 

relief is due.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/10/2017
J-S64007-17

- 3 -
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0802. STEVE COOPER et al. v. ORMA LACKEY, SUPERINTENDENT

OF ELECTIONS CITY OF FORT OGLETHORPE et al.

Steve Cooper brought an action challenging the qualifications of candidate

Charles L. Sharrock. After the superintendent of elections refused to remove

Sharrock from the ballot, Cooper appealed to superior court. The superior court

action was dismissed, and the court awarded OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fees to

defendant Sharrock. Cooper then filed this direct appeal.

Pursuant to the Georgia constitution, appeals in cases of election contests are

within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. See Ga. Const. of

1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II (2); Jordan v. Cook, 277 Ga. 155 (587 SE2d 52) (2003)

(appeal from superior court’s dismissal of appeal from opinion by superintendent of

elections). The Supreme Court has exercised its election-contest jurisdiction in

appeals from OCGA § 9-15-14 awards such cases. See Davis v. Dunn, 286 Ga. 582

(690 SE2d 389) (2010). Therefore, this appeal is TRANSFERRED to the Supreme

Court for disposition.

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.

02/03/2016

February 03, 2016
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 2035]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

The Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) has considered the application (docketed June 21, 2017) submitted by the Grand Forks Regional Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 103, requesting reissuance of the grant of authority for said zone to the Grand Forks Region Economic Development Corporation, which has accepted such reissuance subject to approval by the FTZ Board. Upon review, the Board finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest.

Therefore, the Board approves the application and recognizes the Grand Forks Region Economic Development Corporation as the new grantee for Foreign-Trade Zone 103, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13.

Dated: August 11, 2017.

Gary Taverman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-17530 Filed 8-18-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of IntegraMed America, Inc. (the
     "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
     the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
     I, Jay Higham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
     18 U.S.C. /s/ 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of  operations  of the
        Company.



                                                 /s/Jay Higham
                                                    -------------------------
                                                    Jay Higham
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    December 27, 2006
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
WILLIAMS INDUSTRIES, INC.
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1997

                       PRIMARY                       FULLY DILUTED
                SHARES                              SHARES
DATE ISSUED     ISSUED   BALANCE # DAYS             ISSUED  BALANCE # DAYS

<S>      <C>    <C>       <C> <C>         <C>       <C>       <C>   <C>
Balance
  8-1-96        2,576,017 162 417,314,754    70,000 2,676,017 162   428,654,754

1-10-97  22,150 2,598,167 110 285,798,370    70,000 2,668,167  80   213,453,360

3-31-97         2,598,167                 1,143,659 3,741,826  30   112,254,780

4-30-97 241,489 2,829,656  70 198,775,920   935,282 3,774,938  70   264,245,660

7-9-97      100 2,839,756  23  65,314,388   935,307 3,775,063  23    86,826,449

                              967,203,432                         1,105,435,003

Divided by                            365                     365           365

Average
  shares
  per day                       2,649,872                             3,028,589

</TABLE>

<TABLE>

<S>          <C>               <C>                                    <C>
Earnings per share 

Profit before
  extraordin-
  ary item   $2,982,512            $1.13                                  $0.99

Extraordinary 
  item        3,189,000             1.20                                   1.05

Total profit 
  per common 
  share      $6,171,512            $2.33                                  $2.04
</TABLE>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 335 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve 529 plans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2015 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. CASEY, Mr. BURR, Mr. WARNER, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. CARDIN) 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 improve 

529 plans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT AL4 LOWED AS A QUALIFIED HIGHER EDUCATION 

5 EXPENSE FOR SECTION 529 ACCOUNTS. 

6 (a) MADE PERMANENT.—Clause (iii) of section 

7 529(e)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘in 2009 or 2010’’. 

9 (b) ONLY FOR USE PRIMARILY BY THE BENE10 FICIARY.—Clause (iii) of section 529(e)(3)(A) of such 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 335 IS

1 Code is amended by striking ‘‘used by the beneficiary and 

2 the beneficiary’s family’’ and inserting ‘‘used primarily by 

3 the beneficiary’’. 

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to expenses paid or incurred after 

6 December 31, 2014. 

7 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF DISTRIBUTION AGGREGATION RE8 QUIREMENTS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (ii) of section 

10 529(c)(3)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

11 amended by inserting before the comma at the end the 

12 following: ‘‘, except for purposes of calculating the earn13 ings portion of any distribution.’’. 

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

15 this section shall apply to distributions after December 31, 

16 2014. 

17 SEC. 3. CONTRIBUTION OF AMOUNTS PREVIOUSLY DIS18 TRIBUTED IN CASE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM 

19 SCHOOL. 

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 529(c) 

21 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by add22 ing at the end the following new subparagraph: 

23 ‘‘(E) SPECIAL RULE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS

24 RELATING TO WITHDRAWAL FROM SCHOOL.—In 

25 the case of a beneficiary who receives a refund 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 335 IS

1 of any qualified higher education expenses from 

2 an eligible educational institution in connection 

3 with withdrawal from enrollment at such insti4 tution, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to that 

5 portion of any distribution for the taxable year 

6 which is recontributed to a qualified tuition pro7 gram of which such individual is a beneficiary, 

8 but only to the extent such recontribution is 

9 made not later than 60 days after the date of 

10 such refund and does not exceed the refunded 

11 amount.’’. 

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

13 this section shall apply with respect to distributions after 

14 December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1                 
<CURRENCY>                                   US DOLLARS                     
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         OCT-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            OCT-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              JAN-25-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                        706,976
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,235,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (238,298)
<INVENTORY>                                   799,202
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,705,316
<PP&E>                                      7,555,289
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,992,046)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              9,660,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       2,935,840
<BONDS>                                     2,868,532
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        9,678
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,846,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                9,660,626
<SALES>                                     2,315,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2,315,415
<CGS>                                       1,230,895
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,230,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               23,459
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             72,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (670,241)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (670,241)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (670,241)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q/A FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      15,526,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,846,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,135,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,837,000
<PP&E>                                      20,331,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,923,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,797,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       42,795,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       147,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,135,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,797,000
<SALES>                                     14,792,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,710,000
<CGS>                                        1,671,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,183,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,895,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               253,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             708,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,214,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,857,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,357,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,357,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.66)
        

</TABLE>
**C O N T E N T S**  Financial        Highlights  2President’s        Letter  4Management’s        Discussion and Analysis 10Quarterly        Data 14Selected        Financial Data 16Report of        Management and Report of Independent Auditors 18Consolidated        Statement of Earnings 19Consolidated        Balance Sheet 20Consolidated        Statement of Cash Flows 22Consolidated        Statement of Stockholders’ Equity 23Accounting        Policies and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements  24Elected        Officers 32Board of        Directors 33Stockholder        Information 34Corporate        Facilities and Principal Associated Companies  36
WRIGLEY BRANDS
WOVEN INTO
THE FABRIC

OF EVERYDAY
LIFE AROUND
THE WORLDWE’RE MOVING FASTER AT WRIGLEY. TO ACHIEVE OUR VISION        AND DELIVER RESULTS, WE HAVE SET A NEW PACE FOR OURSELVES, A PACE THAT        IS FUELED BY THE ENERGY AND ENTHUSIASM OF OVER 10,000 WRIGLEY EMPLOYEES.        OUR SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN NEW PRODUCT LAUNCHES IS PERHAPS THE MOST VISIBLE        EVIDENCE OF THIS ACCELERATED TEMPO. 

OUR VISION IS SUPPORTED BY SIX STRATEGIC CHOICES. AT          EVERY LEVEL OF THE WRIGLEY ORGANIZATION, THERE IS COMMITMENT TO THE          EXECUTION OF THESE OBJECTIVES. PROGRESS IN EACH AREA HAS HELPED US SERVE          OUR CUSTOMERS BETTER WHILE EXPANDING THE PRESENCE AND IMPACT OF WRIGLEY          BRANDS WITH CONSUMERS AROUND THE WORLD. 
**Wrigley at a Glance**
The Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company is a recognized leader in        the confectionery field and the world’s largest manufacturer and        marketer of chewing gum. The company was founded in 1891 and has been        publicly traded since 1917. The company’s stock is traded under the        ticker symbol WWY on the New York and Chicago stock exchanges. 
Since the introduction of Juicy Fruit® and Wrigley’s        Spearmint® gums over 100 years ago, the company has increased        its product portfolio to dozens of brands. With each new product innovation,        Wrigley has delivered added value to consumers. 
In addition to adding flavor to everyday life, Wrigley        products now deliver benefits including breath freshening, tooth whitening,        oral care, vitamin delivery, as well as sore throat, cough, and heartburn        relief. These increasingly sophisticated products from Wrigley are generating        excitement in the chewing gum category, helping meet consumer needs and        are consistent with the company’s strategy to boost our core chewing        gum business. The success of these new products is best measured by the        increased profitability delivered to shareholders.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8036

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARK LEE SHUMAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (2:04−cr−00025−BO−1; 2:07-cv-00021-BO) 

Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Appeal dismissed; petition denied by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

Mark Lee Shuman, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Mark Lee Shuman seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shuman has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.*

 Shuman also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

an order to compel the district court to rule on his claims of 

 *

 We decline to consider the claims raised by Shuman in his 

informal brief that were not presented in his § 2255 motion in 

the district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 

(4th Cir. 1993). 

2 
3 

actual innocence raised for the first time in his application 

for a certificate of appealability. Our review of the docket 

sheet reveals that the district court entered an order denying 

Shuman’s application for a certificate of appealability on 

January 21, 2009. Accordingly, because the district court has 

ruled on Shuman’s application, we deny the mandamus petition as 

moot. 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. 

APPEAL DISMISSED;

PETITION DENIED