alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Collica , 2022

- Ohio

- 2000.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

- v
- JOSEPH J. COLLICA,

Defendant

- Appellant. CASE NO. 2022

- P

- 0026

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2018 CR 00433

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Decided: June 13, 2022 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff

- Appellee).
Joseph J. Collica, pro se, PID# A753

- 774, Noble Correctional Institution, 15708 McConnelsville Road, Caldwell, OH 43724 (Defendant

- Appellant).

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.

{¶1} On May 20, 2022, appellant, Joseph J. Collica , pro se, filed a notice of
appeal from the trial court’s April 14, 2022 entry overruling his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. A timely notice was due no later than May 16, 2022, which was not a holiday
or weekend. The appeal is untimely by four days.

{¶2} “ * * * [A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry
shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” App.R.
4(A)(1)

.2

Case No. 2022

- P

- 0026 {¶3} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A ) for
the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with
leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases:

{¶4} “(a) Criminal proceedings; * * *

{¶5} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be f iled with the court of appeals and
shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right

* * *.” App.R. 5(A)

. {¶6} Appellant has neither complied with the thirty

- day rule set forth in App.R.
4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A). Thus, this court is without
jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Appellant has a remedy of filing an untimely criminal
appeal under App.R. 5(A).

{¶7} A ppeal dismissed , sua sponte, as untimely.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.
,
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
,

concur

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel BRAXTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7637.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Samuel Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Arun G. Rao, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Braxton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 motion 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 Braxton 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

March 31, 2015

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 14, 2015

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Brody 

Mining, LLC v. Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos. WEVA 2014-82-

R, et al. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge had 

jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of a Pattern of Violations 

notice and whether he erred in dismissing the notice.)

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4185
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ATANASIO NAVA-VEGA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00110-RJC-1) Submitted: September 25, 2008 Decided: October 9, 2008 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ross H. Richardson, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Atanasio Nava-Vega pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following conviction of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000), and was sentenced to fifty-two months’ imprisonment. He now appeals, questioning the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) in the wake of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We affirm. Because Nava-Vega did not raise the constitutionality of § 1326(b) before the district court, we review for plain error. SeeUnited States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Section 1326(a) provides a two-year maximum term of imprisonment for any alien who illegally returns to the United States after having been deported. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). If the removal was subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, the statutory maximum increases to twenty years. Id. § 1326(b)(2). In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 233-36, 243-44 (1998), the Supreme Court held that § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor rather than a separate criminal offense. We have expressly determined that the holding in Almendarez-Torres was not overruled by Apprendi and remains the law. United States v. Sterling , 283 F.3d 216, 220 (4th Cir. 2002). We therefore conclude that Nava-Vega’s claim is without merit and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions3 are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

February 6, 2015

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 19, 2015

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will hear oral argument in the matter *Big Ridge, Inc. v. Secretaryof Labor,*Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-699-R, et al.**(Issues includewhether the Administrative Law Judge erred in upholding certain orders issuedpursuant to sections 103(j) and 103(k) of the Federal Mine Safety and HealthAct of 1977.)

 

 

Any person attending this oral argument who requiresspecial accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
101 A.3d 22

#### IN THE MATTER OF GREGORY N. FILOSA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 039102005).

November 6, 2014.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-108, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to *Rule*1:20-14, GREGORY N. FILOSA of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2006, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year based on discipline imposed in the state of New York for conduct that in New Jersey constitutes violations of *RPC*3.3(a)(4) (a lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false), *RPC*3.4(a) (a lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a documents or other material having potential evidentiary value, or counsel or assist another person to do any such act), *RPC*3.4(b) (a lawyer shall not falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely), *RPC*4.1(a) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person), *RPC*8.4(a) (conduct that violates the *RPCs), RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and *RPC*8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that the term of suspension should be retroactive to the date of his suspension in New York;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that GREGORY N. FILOSA is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective February 12, 2013, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

*29ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of *Rule*l:20-20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of *RPC*8.1(b) and *RPC*8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to *Rule*1:10-2; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
Exhibit 5.6

CONSENT OF SCOTT WILSON ROSCOE POSTLE ASSOCIATES INC.

Reference is made to the Annual Report on
Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Annual Report) of New Gold Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

We hereby consent to the references to our name under the heading General Development of the Business  Business of New Gold  Three Year
History in the Companys Annual Information Form and to all other references to our name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.



|                                           |  |                                |  | 
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------ |  | 
|SCOTT WILSON ROSCOE POSTLE ASSOCIATES INC.
|                                           |  |                               
|By:                                        |  | /s/ David W. Rennie            |  | 
|Name:                                      |  | David W. Rennie, P. Eng.       |  | 
|Title:                                     |  | Consulting Geological Engineer |  | 

March 26, 2007
EXHIBIT 32(b)

                            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 Quaterly Report of Murray United Development
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Anthony Campo,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The Report 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.

Date:  June 10, 2004                            / s /  Anthony Campo
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       ANTHONY CAMPO,
                                       Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial
                                       and Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
this schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
financial statements for the three months ended January 31, 1997 and is 
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                       0
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  248,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                   14,000
<INVENTORY>                                    26,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,414
<PP&E>                                         1,955,337
<DEPRECIATION>                                 714,495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,992,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,436,292
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       310
<OTHER-SE>                                     (444,067)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,992,535
<SALES>                                        432,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               432,875
<CGS>                                          188,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             17,474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (147,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (147,721)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        
<PAGE>


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


        <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                          47,009
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (4,700)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,991
<PP&E>                                         433,418
<DEPRECIATION>                                (419,987)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125,422
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          456,788
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,622
<OTHER-SE>                                    (423,988)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   125,422
<SALES>                                      1,277,502
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,277,502
<CGS>                                          835,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,230,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,558
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,558
<DISCONTINUED>                                   8,712
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,270
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Caraustar Industries, 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), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 8, 2006



/s/ Michael J. KeoughMichael J. Keough, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Olesea URSU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-72796.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.*

Filed Jan. 27, 2016.

Yevgeniy Chechenin, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner.

Aaron Nelson, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Olesea Ursu, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, ap*485plying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancies and Ursu’s changing account as to whether, she used outside sources to prepare her written asylum application declaration, or completed it solely in her own words. *See id.*at 1048. Ursu’s explanations do not compel the opposite result. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Ursu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Ursu’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements found not credible, and she points to no other evidence that compels the finding it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Moldova. *See id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       7,435,724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,234,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,581,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,932,016
<PP&E>                                       9,876,478
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,380,453
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,486,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,808,098
<BONDS>                                     46,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,374
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,224,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,486,105
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            65,584,293
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               74,130,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             5,778,216
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,607,331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (15,891,935)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   909,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (14,982,935)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (14,982,935)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.20)
        

</TABLE>