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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-7579

ARTHUR FRANK HARRISON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.

(CR-92-68, CA-96-72-BO)

Submitted: August 14, 1997

Decided: August 25, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Arthur Frank Harrison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson,

OFFICE OF THE 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Arthur Frank Harrison, convicted by a jury of numerous firearms

offenses, now appeals the district court's denial of his motion filed

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), in which Harrison raised several claims relating to his entrapment defense, and

claimed ineffective assistance of his privately retained trial counsel.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error.

First, the claims Harrison raises which relate to his entrapment

defense have been previously raised on direct appeal and decided

adversely to Harrison. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed those claims. See Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d

1182, 1183 (4th Cir. 1976).

In addition, this Court reviewed the evidence of Harrison's guilt in

his direct appeal, and found it to be overwhelming. United States v.

Harrison, 37 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 1994). Given this, we find that Harrison has not demonstrated prejudice required by Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 691-94 (1984), and therefore cannot

obtain relief from his conviction based on ineffective assistance of

counsel.

Finally, Harrison's claim that the district court erred by failing to

hold an evidentiary hearing is without merit. In many instances it is

appropriate for the sentencing judge to dispose of a§ 2255 motion

based on his memory, Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 n.4

(1977), however, the district court in this case went a step further by

expanding the record to include affidavits. See Raines v. United

States, 423 F.2d 526, 529-30 (4th Cir. 1970). We find that a hearing

was not necessary because the record conclusively shows that Harrison was not entitled to relief. See Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S.

213, 215 (1973).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 2
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Thomas A. Schuler, Chief Financial Officer andCompany Secretary of Sun New Media, Inc., certify that:

1.      I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sun New Media, Inc.;

2.      Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.      The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e)and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)       designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport was being prepared;

(b)       evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)       disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.      The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

(a)       all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)       any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| /s/ Thomas A. Schuler                       |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Thomas A.  Schuler, Chief Financial Officer |
| Date: February  14, 2007                    |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22345]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 18, 2017.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors 
must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Board Briefing, NCUA's 2018-2019 Budget.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the 
Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Gerard Poliquin,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-22345 Filed 10-11-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric R. Spangenberg, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 782]

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Peter C. Bradstreet, J.), rendered April 30, 2012. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed upon his conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]) and imposing a determinate term of imprisonment of two years and 18 months of postrelease supervision, defendant contends that his admission to the violation of probation was involuntary because the transcript of the admission colloquy shows that he was confused with respect to what facts he was admitting. Because defendant did not move on that ground either to withdraw his admission to the violation of probation or to vacate the judgment revoking his sentence of probation, he failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the voluntariness of his admission *(see People v Carncross,*48 AD3d 1187, 1187 [2008], *lv dismissed*10 NY3d 932 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 830 [2008]; *People v Barra,*45 AD3d 1393, 1393-1394 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 761 [2008]; *People v Fontanez,*19 *1445AD3d 1070, 1070-1071 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 788 [2005]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation rule does not apply because defendant did not say anything during the admission colloquy that “cast[ ] significant doubt upon [his] guilt or otherwise call[ed] into question the voluntariness of the [admission]” *(People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; *see People v Mox,*84 AD3d 1723, 1724 [2011], *affd*20 NY3d 936 [2012]). Although defendant refused to admit that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation by committing the new crimes with which he was charged, he admitted without equivocation that he violated such terms and conditions by failing to pay his surcharge and by consuming alcohol with a friend.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit.

Present—Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Scott Homer McKINLEY, Appellant.

No. 11-1137.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 13, 2011.

Filed: Aug. 1, 2011.

Thomas More Hollenhorst, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appel-lee.

Leon Adolphus Trawick, Trawick & Smith, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.

Scott Homer McKinley, Anoka, MN, pro se.

Before COLLOTON, CLEVENGER,1*655and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The Honorable Raymond C. Clevenger, III, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Scott Homer McKinley appeals his sentence following conviction on a guilty plea of conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and oxycodone. *See*21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(B), 846. Although the district court’s2 sentence of 188 months imprisonment was below the range set forth in the sentencing guidelines, Mr. McKinley argues that the record did not support any sentence above the statutory minimum of 120 months. We disagree, and so affirm.

In his appeal brief, Mr. McKinley describes his personal history of drug addiction, illness, and homelessness. While we are sympathetic to Mr. McKinley’s difficulties, the record indicates that the district court was aware of them and, we presume, took them into account in sentencing. *United States v. Miles,*499 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir.2007). We note particularly that Mr. McKinley’s sentence of 188 months is a substantial downward variance from the range called for in the sentencing guidelines, which was 262 to 327 months. It is well established that a sentence within the advisory guidelines would have been presumptively reasonable on appeal. *Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 350-51, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); *United States v. Frausto,*636 F.3d 992, 997 (8th Cir.2011).

The lengthy sentence recommended by the guidelines was, as the district court noted, partly due to Mr. McKinley’s criminal history. Nevertheless, the district court determined that a shorter sentence was justified. Given that the longer sentence called for by the guidelines would have been presumptively reasonable, and Mr. McKinley received a lesser sentence than that, we decline Mr. McKinley’s request to find that an even shorter sentence was required. *United States v. Flying By,*511 F.3d 773, 778 (8th Cir.2007). We see no basis for finding, as Mr. McKinley urges, that no sentence but the statutory minimum could possibly be applied here. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

2

. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Exhibit 3.1



CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF

QUEST SOFTWARE, INC.

(a California corporation)



The undersigned Douglas F. Garn and J. Michael Vaughn certify that:



1. They are the duly elected and acting President and Secretary, respectively, of QUEST SOFTWARE,
INC., a California corporation (the Corporation).



2. Paragraph A of Article III of the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation, as amended through the date of this filing, shall be amended to read in full as follows:



| | A. | Classes of Stock. This corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock to be designated, respectively, Common Stock and Preferred Stock. The
total number of shares of stock which the corporation is authorized to issue is Two Hundred Ten Million (210,000,000) shares. Two Hundred Million (200,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock, no par value per share, and Ten Million
(10,000,000) shares shall be Preferred Stock, no par value per share.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



3. The foregoing amendment of the Articles of Incorporation has been duly approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.



4. The foregoing amendment of the Articles of Incorporation has been approved by the required vote of shareholders in accordance with Section 902
of the California Corporations Code. The total number of outstanding shares of the Corporation entitled to vote with respect to the foregoing amendment was 97,764,755 shares of common stock. The vote required to approve the proposal was a majority
of the outstanding shares entitled to vote. The number of votes in favor of the amendment exceeded the vote required.



---

We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that we have read
this Certificate and that the matters set forth in this certificate are true and correct of our own knowledge.



Executed at Aliso Viejo, California on August 4, 2005.



/s/    DOUGLAS F. GARNDouglas F. Garn, President/s/    J. MICHAEL VAUGHNJ. Michael Vaughn, Secretary
Ex 10.4 12.9.14






Exhibit 10.4


December 4, 2014


Benjamin Pardo
New York, NY


Dear Benjamin:
It is our pleasure to inform you that you will be a participant in the 2015 Knoll, Inc. Incentive Compensation Program.
We are counting on you to help us build on the positive momentum we created in 2014 across each of our business segments. We must strive to continue to gain share, improve our profitability, target under-penetrated markets, expand our reach into consumer and decorator channels and build a responsible and technologically efficient infrastructure across all our businesses to position Knoll for success in 2015 and beyond.
If you achieve your individual goals and Knoll makes its 2015 operating profit plan you can qualify for a total target incentive payout of $285,000.
This award is subject to my approval and that of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors), which may exercise discretion in adjusting your award up or down based on factors the Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors) deems appropriate, including Knoll’s performance relative to the industry, other macroeconomic factors and your individual performance.  You must be employed by Knoll on the date this award is distributed in order to receive this incentive.
We have great confidence in your ability to contribute to our success in 2015 and look forward to being able to present you with your award in early 2016.
Thank you for all that you do for Knoll.
Sincerely,
/s/ Andrew Cogan                    
Andrew Cogan                        
CEO
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07
- 24
- 00005
- CR
JOE HERRERA , A

PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas 1 Trial Court No
. 2022
- 2001
- C2 , Counts I & II, Honorable Alan Bennett , Presiding 

### June 28 , 2024 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Joe Herrera , appeals his conviction s for assault family violence 2 and concurrent sentence s of forty years ’ confinement. Appellant ’ s brief was originally due February 28 , 2024, but we granted Appellant’s appointed counsel three e xtensions to file a brief due to his caseload

. By letter of May 7 , 2024 , we admonished counsel that no

1 Thi s appeal was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order of the Supreme Co urt of Texas. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.

2 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.01

.2

further extensi ons would be granted and that failure to file a brief by May 29 w ould result in the appeal being abated and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings without further notice. To date, A ppellant ’ s counsel has not filed a brief or had any further communication with this Court. Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38.8(b)(2), (3). Upon remand, the trial court shall determine the following: (1) whether Appellan t still desires to prosecute the appeal; (2) whether A ppellant is indigent; (3) why a timely appellate brief has not been filed on A ppellant ’s behalf ; (4) whether A ppellant ’ s counsel has abandoned the appeal; (5) whether A ppellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel; (6) whether new counsel should be appointed; and (7) if A ppellant desires to continue the appeal, the date the C ourt may expect A ppellant ’ s brief to be filed.
T he trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this C ourt by August 27 , 2024

. If it is determined that A ppellant desires to proceed with the appeal, is indigent, and has been denied the effective assistance of counsel, the trial court may appoint him new counsel; the name, address, email address, tele phone number, and state b ar number of any newly appointed counsel shall be included in the aforementioned findings.3

Should Appellant’s counsel file a brief on or before July 29 , 2024 , he is directed to immediately notify the trial court of the filing, in writing, wh ereupon the trial court shall not be required to take any further action.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam Do not publish.
Exhibit 32.02




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER




I, Vincent Lorenzo, certify that:




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Digital Creative Development Corporation for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to Section 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; and


(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of op ations of the Company.






Date: June 3, 2011/s/ Vincent LorenzoVincent LorenzoChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>





                                                                      Exhibit 21


              CONSOLIDATED WATER CO. LTD. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


     The following list includes all of the Registrant's wholly-owned
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001. All subsidiaries of the Registrant
appearing in the following table are included in the consolidated financial
statements of the Registrant.

     Name of Subsidiary                      Jurisdiction of Incorporation
     ------------------                      -----------------------------

     Belize Water Ltd.                       Belize
     Commonwealth Water Limited(1)           Bahamas
     Cayman Water Company Limited(1)         Cayman Islands
     Hurricane Hideway Ltd.(1)               Cayman Islands


(1) Dormant companies, with no operations, assets and liabilities.
Exhibit 15.1  LOGO CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-156922 and No. 333-149717) of Sims Metal
Management Limited of our report dated March 16, 2013 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F/A. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers PricewaterhouseCoopers Sydney, Australia March 16, 2013   PricewaterhouseCoopers, ABN 52 780 433 757 Darling Park Tower 2, 201 Sussex Street, GPO BOX 2650, SYDNEY NSW 1171 DX 77 Sydney, Australia T +61 2 8266 0000, F +61 2 8266 9999, www.pwc.com.au
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3016 

To prohibit the use of certain funds to host Iranian officials for Independence 

Day celebrations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2009 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of certain funds to host Iranian officials 

for Independence Day celebrations, 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. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS TO 

4 HOST IRANIAN OFFICIALS FOR INDEPEND5 ENCE DAY CELEBRATIONS INTERNATION6 ALLY OR DOMESTICALLY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds made available to the 

8 Department of State or any other Federal department or 

9 agency for fiscal year 2009 may be used to host Iranian 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3016 IH

1 officials for Independence Day celebrations internationally 

2 or domestically. 

3 (b) INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATIONS DE4 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Independence Day 

5 celebrations’’ means any celebration on any day relating 

6 to the July 4th Independence Day celebrations of the 

7 United States. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS