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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7995

JOSEPH J. SCHEPIS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

G. MALDONADO, JR., Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-04-276-0-17BD)

Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 9, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph J. Schepis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Joseph J. Schepis, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Schepis v. Maldonado, No. CA-04-276-0-17BD

(D.S.C. filed Nov. 29, 2004; entered Nov. 30, 2004). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
3-13: Acidified Low Acid Foods 

An acidified food is a low acid food to which acid or acid food is added to produce a final pH of 4.6 or 

less. proper acidification prevents growth of C. botulinum. Final product pH must be 4.6 or less to prevent 

C. botulinum growth. pH Is the term used to designate degree of acidity or basicity. The more hydrogen 

ions equals more acidic. The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. Pure water is neutral at a pH of 7.0. Above a 

pH of 7.0 there are more OH ions. Below a pH of 7.0 there are more H ions. Buffering capacity refers to 

the ability of a food to resist change in pH. This varies from food to food. To determine pH of a product 

there are two methods, colorimetric method and electronic method. 

There are several acidification procedures in establishment can use (1) acid Blanche food, (2) immerse 

blanched foods in acid solution, (3) direct batch acidification, (4) add acid foods to low acid foods, (5) 

direct acidification of food in container. Each certification method requires proper control. An 

establishment may utilize more than one procedure. An establishment must monitor the acidification by 

pH measurement as reference in regulation 431.5(e). 

Failure to properly acidify a product to less than 4.6 pH, one of the following must occur, fully reprocess 

product, process as low acid food, hold for evaluation, or destroy. Establishment must maintain records 

showing adherence to process schedules and retain records of all processed deviations.
EX-34.8
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 3300
1100 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO 64106-2129
USA

Tel: +1 816 474 6180
www.deloitte.com


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Board of Directors
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, Inc., (the "Company"), an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.,
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for its role in servicing
Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities Transactions (the "Platform") as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii),
1122(d)(3)(i)((B), (C) and (D)), 1122(d)3(ii) through 3(iv), and
1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management's
assertion identifies the transactions defined by management as constituting the
Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on
our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were
limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have
included servicing activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction
included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period
specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007, for its role in servicing Commercial Mortgage Backed
Securities Transactions is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Kansas City, MO
February 18, 2008



Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE THIRD
QUARTER 2000 10-Q OF INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                              15,419
<SECURITIES>                                       500,993
<RECEIVABLES>                                       94,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        148,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   876,061
<PP&E>                                             568,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,976,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              574,348
<BONDS>                                            524,908
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               695
<OTHER-SE>                                         680,965
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,976,632
<SALES>                                            594,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   594,084
<CGS>                                              386,080
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      386,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  62,725
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     68,515
<INCOME-TAX>                                        24,020
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 44,495
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        44,495
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .65


</TABLE>
# Inspection Tasks
---

|Rodney A. Blakestad, J.D., C.P.G.
|---------------------------------
|1602 W. Placita Sin Nieve        
|Sahuarita, Arizona 85629         
|MasOro@dakotacom.net             

|US Securities and Exchange Commission
|-------------------------------------
|Division of Corporation Finance      
|450 Fifth Street NW                  
|Washington, DC 20549                 

Re: Journey Resources Corp.  Form 20-F Registration
Statement

Dear Sirs:

I, Rodney A. Blakestad, J.D., C.P.G., consent to the references
to my name and to the statements attributed to me respecting the technical
report entitled The Vianey Mine  Guerrero State, Mexico prepared by me dated
October 18, 2004 (revised on March 10, 2005), included in the above-referenced
registration statement on Form 20-F and in any amendment thereto.

Dated July 7, 2008.



Rodney A.
BlakestadRodney
A. Blakestad, J.D., C.P.G.

---
#### Linwood COLLINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 10-7263.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 18, 2011.

Linwood Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Linwood Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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. *See*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 Collins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap*650pealability 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.*
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                            EXHIBIT 12

                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST I
                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING I, L.P.
                                COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                    COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS

                                               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED              FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                      MARCH 26, 1999                         MARCH 27, 1998
                                           ------------------------------------    -----------------------------------
                                            MERRILL LYNCH       MERRILL LYNCH       MERRILL LYNCH      MERRILL LYNCH
                                              PREFERRED           PREFERRED           PREFERRED          PREFERRED
                                           CAPITAL TRUST I      FUNDING I, L.P.    CAPITAL TRUST I     FUNDING I, L.P.
                                           ---------------      ---------------    ---------------     ---------------
<S>                                           <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>       
EARNINGS                                      $5,492,913          $6,433,653          $5,492,913          $6,441,990
                                              ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========

FIXED CHARGES                                 $       --          $       --          $       --          $       --

PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTION
  REQUIREMENTS                                 5,328,125           5,492,913           5,328,125           5,492,913
                                              ----------          ----------          ----------          ----------

TOTAL COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND
  PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS          $5,328,125          $5,492,913          $5,328,125          $5,492,913
                                              ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED
  FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
  SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS                          1.03                1.17                1.03                1.17
</TABLE>
No. 90-066 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF NANCY JEANNE ERLER, Petitioner and Respondent, 

### v. MARK ANTHONY ERLER, Respondent and Respondent, and LEONARD FARRELL THOMAS, Intervenor and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis and Clark, The Honorable Thomas Honzel, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Leonard F. Thomas,Helena, Montana For Respondent: Ann L. Smoyer, Helena, Montana Randi M. Hood, Public Defender, Helena,Montana J. Cort Harrington,Jr., Helena,Montana

Filed: Submitted on Briefs: June 7, 1990 Decided:

### JusticeWilliam E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Appellant Leonard Thomas appeals from the order of the District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, which denied appellant's motions for determination of unconscionable clause, imposition of penalty for deceit, relief from order, and Rule 11 sanctions. We affirm. The sole issue is whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying appellant'smotions. Appellant is the former husband of respondent, Nancy Jeanne Erler. While married, appellant and Nancy had one child, Robin. Appellant and Nancy were separated in 1979, at which time Robin
was approximately one year old, and were subsequently divorced. At the time of dissolution,Nancy was granted custody of Robin and appellantwas granted visitation rights ''uponrequest." From 1980 until August of 1988, appellant had very little contact with Robin. During this period of time, Nancy married respondent,Mark Erler,with whom she had a child,J.E. InFebruary of 1988,Mark andNancy filed a jointpetition for dissolution of their marriage. As a result of this dissolution, Mark and Nancy entered into a property, custody and support agreementwhich included support, custody, and visitation of both J.E. and Robin. Intheagreement, Mark wasgiven visitation rights withboth children. TheDistrictCourt incorporatedthisagreement into the decree of dissolution.Approximately one year later appellantmoved to intervene in the dissolution action. The District Court granted the motion. Appellant then filed a motion seeking to relieve Mark and Nancy of their obligation to abide by the provisions of the agreement relating to Robin, and to declare those terms of the agreement relating to Robin unconscionable. The agreement that appellant contests does not affect appellant's visitation rights in any way. As a result,he has no basis for altering the order. ~dditionally, such agreement is in the best interest of Robin. The District Court correctly denied appellant'smotions. Affirmed. Let remittitur issue forthwith. See Rules 34 and 35,M.R.App.P. Pursuant to Section I,Par. 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shallbe published by its filing as apublic document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result to West Publishing Company. Justice We Concur:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1786

CATHERINE PONDJI KONG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-561-848) Submitted: January 17, 2007 Decided: March 1, 2007 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steffanie J. Lewis, Alexandru I. Craciunescu, THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director, Barry J. Pettinato, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Catherine Pondji Kong, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks to appeal the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen her immigration proceedings. To the extent that Kong seeks to appeal the Board’s refusal to exercise its authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review this decision. See Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). As to Kong’s claim that the Board abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because of changed circumstances, we have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); Stewart v. INS , 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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. PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                     COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED           SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                ------------------           ----------------
                                                                  SEPTEMBER 30                 SEPTEMBER 30
                                                                  ------------                 ------------
                                                                      1997                        1997
                                                                      ----                        ----

<S>                                                             <C>                           <C>
Net income for period                                               $3,063,304                  $5,604,343      

Accumulated preferred stock dividend for period                       (165,318)                   (237,195)
                                                                    ----------                  ----------
Net earnings available to common stockholders                       $2,899,986                  $5,367,148

Weighted number of common shares outstanding                         
  during period                                                      6,291,000                   6,119,344

Net effect of dilutive stock options based upon the
  treasury stock method                                               (292,087)                   (301,700)
                                                                    ----------                  ----------
Weighted number of shares used in calculating                        5,998,913                   5,817,644
  primary earnings per share

PRIMARY NET EARNINGS PER SHARE                                      $    0.483                  $    0.923
                                                                    ==========                  ==========
Net effect of dilutive stock options based upon the
  treasury method for fully diluted                                   (273,292)                   (273,292)

Weighted number of shares used in calculating
  fully diluted earnings per share                                   6,017,708                   5,846,052

FULLY DILUTED NET EARNINGS PER SHARE                                $    0.482                  $    0.918
                                                                    ==========                  ==========


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION
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








In
connection with Annual Report of Media Sentiment, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I,  Marian Munz, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.





By:
            /s/Marian MunzName:
            Marian
      MunzTitle:
            Principal
      Executive Officer,and
      DirectorDate:
            April
      15, 2009




By:
              /s/William WhiteName:
              Marian
      MunzTitle:
              Principal Financial
      OfficerDate:
              April
      15, 2009


This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Media Sentiment, Inc. and will be retained by Media Sentiment, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gumersindo DEL ANGEL-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41107

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 7, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*374Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gumersindo Del Angel-Juarez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.