alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charmeen Jabar GRAY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 10-7383.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2011.

Charmeen Jabar Gray, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*668PER CURIAM:

Charmeen Jabar Gray seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 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) (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 Gray 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[No. 25139-0-III.

Division Three.

September 4, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Dallin D. Fort, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 05-1-00950-1, Salvatore F. Cozza, J., entered March 31, 2006. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Schultheis, J.
# FY17_Q3

# Percent Positives - User Notes
<PAGE>








                                   EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL












<PAGE>


                [LETTERHEAD OF MCGOWEN HURST CLARK & SMITH, P.C.]



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT
                          -----------------------------


We consent to the use of our independent auditor's report, dated August 10,
2001, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of StateFed Financial
Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2001.



/s/ McGowen, Hurst, Clark & Smith, P.C.
---------------------------------------
    McGowen, Hurst, Clark & Smith, P.C.



Des Moines, Iowa
September 27, 2001
2009-2078.

#### State v. Russell.

Trumbull App. No. 2008-T-0074, 2009-Ohio-5213. Discretionary appeal accepted; cause held for the decision in 2008-2502, *State v. Bodyke,*Huron App. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387; cause consolidated with 2010-0023, *State v. Russell,*Trumbull App. No. 2008-T-0074, 2009-Ohio-5213; and briefing schedule stayed.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 20, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-10-01068-CR

____________

HARDY SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1055262

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant of sexual assault of a child and found the allegations in 

two enhancement paragraphs to be ―true.‖ The jury sentenced appellant to confinement 

for forty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of 

the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the 

right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). As of this date, no pro se response has 

been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We 

are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response 

when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 

178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA 01-486, MM Docket No. 00-188, RM-9969] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission, at the request of WWL-TV, Inc., licensee of station WWL-TV, substitutes DTV channel 36 for DTV channel 30 at New Orleans, Louisiana.                         *See*65 FR 60163, October 10, 2000. DTV channel 36 can be allotted to New Orleans in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (29-54-23 N. and 90-02-23 W.) with a power of 1000, HAAT of 305 meters and with a DTV service population of 1712 thousand.                     

# DATES:

Effective April 12, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-188, adopted February 23, 2001, and released February 26, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Television
      - Digital television broadcasting

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

# PART 73—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336. 

§ 73.622

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Louisiana, is amended by removing DTV channel 30 and adding DTV channel 36 at New Orleans. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 01-4913 Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          13,848
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                       360
<INVENTORY>                                     63,979
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,207
<PP&E>                                         393,904
<DEPRECIATION>                                 171,344
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 393,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,440
<BONDS>                                         39,290
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,905
<OTHER-SE>                                     245,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   393,616
<SALES>                                         95,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,835
<CGS>                                           71,015
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,926
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    16
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,302
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,489
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,813
<DISCONTINUED>                                   9,656
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,469
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.90


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5122]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Maryland Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that a meeting of 
the Maryland Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:00 
a.m. and adjourn at 7:00 p.m. on March 31, 2001, at the Lexington Park 
United Methodist Church, 21760 Great Mills Road, Lexington Park, 
Maryland 20653. The purpose of the meeting is to gather information on 
civil rights complaints and developments from knowledgeable 
representatives of minority groups and local government in Southern 
Maryland, and plan future activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern 
Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten 
(10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, February 26, 2001.
Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-5122 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
[No. 35319-9-II.

Division Two.

September 25, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Justan David Cola, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 06-1-02629-4, Serjio Armijo, J., entered August 3, 2006. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Armstrong and Quinn-Brintnall, JJ.
#### Reyd E. DYER, Claimant-Appellee, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2007-7017.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 5, 2007.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the Secretary of Veteran Affairs’ unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal, from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, case no. 03-0661,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
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 Chase Packaging Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allen
Mcinnes, President and 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

      (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.


                                           /s/ Allen Mcinnes
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Allen McInnes
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

August 2, 2006
Exhibit 32.01




CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Wu Qiyou, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Anhui Taiyang Poultry Co., Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Anhui Taiyang Poultry Co., Inc..





By:
/s/ WU QIYOUDate: April 15, 2011
Name:
Wu QiyouTitle:
Chief Executive Officer





I, David Dodge, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Anhui Taiyang Poultry Co., Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Anhui Taiyang Poultry Co., Inc.





By:
/s/ DAVID DODGEDate: April 15, 2011
Name:
David DodgeTitle:
Chief Financial Officer
2009-1449.

#### Rucker v. Gerald D. Piszczek Co., L.P.A.

Hamilton App. No. C-081058. Discretionary appeal not accepted. Motion for leave to file supplemental joint appendix denied as moot.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 8, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 03-30462

SABRINA A. SKELDON

Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

v.

JOHN ASHCROFT

Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(99-CV-1177)

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sabrina Skeldon appeals that portion of the district court’s

final judgment that denied her motion for attorney’s fees, costs,

and other equitable relief despite the jury’s verdict in her favor

on her hostile work environment claim. The Government appeals that

portion of the district court’s final judgment that denied the
2

Government’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law as to

Skeldon’s hostile work environment claim. We review Skeldon’s

challenge to the district court’s post-verdict denial of her motion

for attorney’s costs, fees, and equitable relief for an abuse of

discretion. Brady v. Fort Bend County, 145 F.3d 691, 716 (5th Cir.

1998) (citations omitted). While our review of the district

court’s denial of the Government’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as

a matter of law is de novo, see Burge v. St. Tammany Parish, 336

F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2003), we will only overturn a jury verdict

when the evidence points “so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor

of one party that the court believes that reasonable [jurors] could

not arrive at any contrary conclusion.” Baltazor v. Holmes, 162

F.3d 368, 373 (5th Cir. 1998)(quoting Boeing v. Shipman, 411 F.2d

365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969)(en banc)).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that Skeldon has

failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in

denying her motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and equitable

relief. We also conclude that sufficient evidence exists to

support the jury’s verdict on Skeldon’s hostile work environment

claim. Accordingly, the district court’s final judgment is

AFFIRMED. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S MARCH 31, 1998 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH
FLOWS OF LEXINGTON HEALTH GROUP, INC.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,542
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,419
<PP&E>                                           2,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,917
<BONDS>                                          7,009
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,932
<SALES>                                         42,772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,246
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (163)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    827
<INCOME-TAX>                                       309
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                518
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       518
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.1


SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officer of Rim Semiconductor Company (the “Company”), does hereby certify that
      to such officer’s knowledge:





(1) The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended July 31,
      2007 (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.





This
      certification is made solely for the purposes of U.S.C. Section 1350, and not
      for any other purpose.





September
      13, 2007




/S/ BRAD
                KETCHBRAD
                KETCH
              PRESIDENT
                AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING
                OFFICER)