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UNPUBLISHED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.

HECTOR VARGAS, a/k/a Rudolpho  No. 01-4925

Pineda-Rodriquez, a/k/a Jesus

Calderon, a/k/a Jesus, a/k/a Hector

Calderon-Vargas,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-96)

Submitted: June 6, 2002

Decided: July 15, 2002

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

R. Clarke Speaks, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank

D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, J. Frank Bradsher, Assistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

Hector Vargas appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy

to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1999) and 21

U.S.C. § 846 (1994). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

Vargas raises only one issue on appeal, contending that the district

court abused its discretion by refusing to accept his guilty plea. Under

Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, "the court

should not enter a judgment upon [a guilty] plea without making such

inquiry as shall satisfy it that there is a factual basis for the plea." Furthermore, there is "no absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted,"

and a district court may "reject a plea in [the] exercise of sound judicial discretion." Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and record on appeal and are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting

Vargas’s guilty plea. 

Accordingly, we affirm Vargas’s conviction and sentence. 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

2 UNITED STATES v. VARGAS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001027342
<NAME> MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST I
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                               283,505,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,492,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           288,998,113
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             288,998,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,492,913
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                275,000,000
<COMMON>                                     8,505,200
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               288,998,113
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,108,284
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,108,284
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,108,284
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,108,284
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Scott Gomez, as Vice President of Finance and Accounting of Hollywood Media
Corp. (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the
accompanying Form 10-K report for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

       Date: March 31, 2005             By: /s/ Scott Gomez
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Scott Gomez, Vice President of
                                            Finance and Accounting
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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


         Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas,
Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

         1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 (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 Company's Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

  Dated November 5, 2002
                             /s/ Paul B. Murphy, Jr.
                             --------------------------------
                             Paul B. Murphy, Jr.
                             Director, President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5352]



[[Page 13520]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3090]


Village of Lyndonville Electric Department; Notice of 
Authorization for Continued Project Operation

February 28, 2001.
    On January 27, 1999, the Village of Lyndonville Electric 
Department, licensee for the Vail Project No. 3090, filed an 
application for a new or subsequent license pursuant to the Federal 
Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. Project 
No. 3090 is located on the Passumpsic River in Caledonia County, 
Vermont.
    The license for Project No. 3090 was issued for a period ending 
January 31, 2001. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), 
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue 
from year to year an annual license to the then licensee under the 
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is 
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior 
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based 
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), 
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project 
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 3090 is issued to 
the Village of Lyndonville Electric Department for a period effective 
February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002, or until the issuance of a 
new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, 
whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other 
disposition) does not take place on or before February 1, 2002, notice 
is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license 
under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without 
further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders 
otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to Section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that the Village of Lyndonville Electric Department is 
authorized to continue operation of the Vail Project No. 3090 until 
such time as the Commission acts on its application for subsequent 
license.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5352 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCORPORATED IN AIR SOUTH AIRLINES, INC., FORM 10Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         464,654
<SECURITIES>                                 1,061,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,980,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,588,339
<PP&E>                                       3,955,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,547,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      (62,983,733)
<BONDS>                                     (4,347,961)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     (1,995)
<COMMON>                                        (6,967)
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,883,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (11,547,172)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (31,508,372)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,230,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (165,328)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,107,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,664,409
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,664,409
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.25)
        

</TABLE>
#### O’Neal, administrator, *v.*Desverges.

This case being for decision by a full bench of six Justices, and they being evenly divided in opinion, the judgment of the court below stands affirmed by operation of law.

Argued December 7, 1900.

Decided May 21, 1901.

Injunction. Before Judge Spence. Decatur superior court. October 17, 1900.

*A. H. Russell,*for plaintiff in error. *Hawes & Hawes,*contra.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman Basic MATTHEW D. SHAFFER

United States Air Force

ACM S32140

01 April 2014

Sentence adjudged 29 March 2013 by SPCM convened at Keesler Air Force 

Base, Mississippi. Military Judge: Rodger A. Drew, Jr.

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 6 months, 

forfeiture of $1010.00 pay per month for 6 months, and a reprimand.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jane E. Boomer.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen and 

Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

ROAN, HARNEY, and MITCHELL

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

 

 The Court notes that the Court-Martial Order (CMO), dated 30 April 2013 incorrectly identifies the military judge

as Roger Drew, whereas the correct spelling of the military judge’s name is Rodger A. Drew, Jr. The Court orders 

the promulgation of a corrected CMO.
2 ACM S32140

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
#### MILLER *v.*DRAKE *et al.*

When, after an ordinary has declared the result of an election held in pursuance of the local option liquor law, a contest is instituted under the provisions of the Political Code, § 1546, persons not originally parties thereto have no right to come in at the hearing and hy way of intervention file a counter-contest, and thus raise issues to he passed upon hy the superior court.

Argued April 10,

Decided April 26, 1901.

Contest of election. Before Judge Reagan. Spalding superior court. January 22, 1901.

*B. T. Daniel, M. W. Beck, T. E. Patterson,*and *J. J. Flynt,*for • plaintiff in error. *J. S. Boynton, B. L. Berner, Lloyd Cleveland, W. C. Beeks, F. D. Dismuke,*and *Searcy & Boyd,*contra.

Lumpkin, P. J.

This court has heretofore twice passed upon bills of exceptions sued out in the litigation arising over the election held in Spalding county on the 19th day of October, 1899, under the local option liquor law. See 109 *Ga.*399, and 112 *Ga.*308. The only material question presented by the bill of exceptions now before us is that dealt with in the headnote. As will have been gathered from the opinions filed in the two preceding cases, the law embraced in the Political Code, §§ 1541 et seq., is, to say the least, obscure and difficult to understand. One thing, however, we think is clear, viz.: that when a contest is instituted in the superior court under section 1546, there is no provision for *348any persons, other than those who are parties to the petition which that section authorizes, to come in at the hearing and by way of intervention file a counter-contest and thus make issues to be passed on by the superior court. In the absence of any statutory provision authorizing such a counter-contest, that court has no authority either to allow the same to be filed or to pass upon the questions which it may present. We therefore hold that the judge did not, in the present case, err in refusing to allow the plaintiffs in error to make themselves parties to the pending proceeding instituted by Drake and others for the purpose of contesting the result of the election as proclaimed .hy the ordinary upon his hearing of the contest originally instituted. This being so, the plaintiffs in error had no part or parcel in that case, and it follows that they had no right to except to the final judgment rendered by the superior court therein. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 28, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 28, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A25D0018. FELICIA NEAL- ANDREWS v. ACE HOMES LLC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

22CV8900
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6809
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE R. RUBIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-00-420, CA-02-229-A) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose R. Rubio, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jose R. Rubio seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Rubio has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Rubio , Nos. CR-00-420; CA-02-229-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2002). Accordingly, we deny Rubio’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Macrovision Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), William A.
Krepick certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted), that to the best of his knowledge:

        (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)),
        and

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

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this
Certification as of August 6, 2004.


                                         /s/ William A. Krepick
                                         ----------------------
                                         William A. Krepick
                                         Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5358]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-288-012


Transwestern Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

February 28, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 22, 2001, Transwestern Pipeline 
Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing to become part of 
Transwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the 
following tariff sheets, proposed to become effective on February 23, 
2001.

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 5B.05
Original Sheet No. 5B.08

    Transwestern states that the above sheets are being filed to 
describe a negotiated rate agreement with Richardson Products Company 
in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to 
Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.
    Transwestern further states that copies of the filing have been 
mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such protest must be filed in accordance with 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may 
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5358 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Statement Under Oath of Principal Financial    Officer Regarding    Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings**

 

I, David L. Shedlarz, state and attest that:

> 
(1) To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the covered reports      of Pfizer Inc., and, except as corrected or supplemented in a subsequent      covered report:
-  no covered report contained an untrue statement of a        material fact as of the end of the period covered by such report (or in        the case of a report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of        the date on which it was filed); and 
-  no covered report omitted to state a material fact necessary        to make the statements in the covered report, in light of the circumstances        under which they were made, not misleading as of the end of the period        covered by such report (or in the case of a report on Form 8-K or definitive        proxy materials, as of the date on which it was filed). 

(2) I have reviewed the contents of this statement with the Company's audit      committee.

(3) In this statement under oath, each of the following, if filed on or      before the date of this statement, is a "covered report":
-  Form 10-K for year ending December 31, 2001 of Pfizer        Inc.; 
-  all reports on Form 10-Q, all reports on Form 8-K, and        all definitive proxy materials of Pfizer Inc. filed with the Commission        subsequent to the filing of the Form 10-K identified above; and 
-  any amendments to any of the foregoing.   

 

/s/ David L. Shedlarz                                                       Subscribed      and sworn to                                                                                             before      me this 13th day of August 2002.      David L. Shedlarz      August 13, 2002                                                              /s/      Margaret M. Foran                                                                                              Notary      Public                                                                                             My      Commission Expires: May 31, 2003