alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Devon Eric SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-4673.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2014.

Decided: April 28, 2014.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Devon Eric Smith appeals his conviction and twelve-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to simple assault on a government official, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (2012). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Smith was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Smith was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief. *245Following a careful review of the record, we affirm.

Counsel questions whether Smith’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel “are generally not cognizable on direct appeal ... unless it conclusively appears from the record that defense counsel did not provide effective representation.” *United States v. Benton,*523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, ineffective assistance claims generally should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. *See United States v. Baptiste,*596 F.3d 214, 216 n. 1 (4th Cir.2010). Because we conclude the record does not plainly establish that Smith’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we decline to consider his claim at this juncture, without prejudice to his ability to raise such a claim in a § 2255 motion.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Smith.

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.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Morris Duane BUCKLES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-30036.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 12, 2007.

Lori Harper Suek, Esq., USBI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jack E. Sands, Esq., Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BEEZER, FISHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Morris Buckles appeals the district court’s finding on remand from this court, *United States v. Buckles,*137 Fed.Appx. 950, 952 (9th Cir.2005), that Buckles’ sister, Bonnie Weinberger, had the apparent authority to consent to the search of her car, which Buckles was driving when federal drug enforcement agents stopped him 228 miles from Weinberger’s home. The district court found that Buckles’ testimony that he had objected to the search was not credible. Rather, Buckles “conveyed [to the agents] the message that consent was not his to give; that it was his sister’s car” and “at least by implication that, if *632consent to search the car was to be given, it had to be obtained from, the sister.” The court concluded that under the “totality of the circumstances,” based on the information known to the agents at the time of the search, Weinberger had apparent authority to consent to the search of the car.

The district court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous, and we affirm. *See Illinois v. Rodriguez,*497 U.S. 177, 182-89, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990). The three-part test used to determine apparent authority is satisfied here. *See United States v. Ruiz,*428 F.3d 877, 880-81 (9th Cir.2005). Buckles points out that the agents knew that when Weinberger consented to the search by telephone she was several hundred miles away from the car, suggesting she did not have access to the car for most purposes. A several hours’ drive did not make it objectively unreasonable for the agents to have believed that Weinberger retained joint access to and control of the car for most purposes given Buckles’ implication that the agents would have to get consent from her.

Buckles waived any argument that Weinberger’s consent did not extend to the packages within the vehicle by failing to so argue in his first appeal to this court. We therefore decline to reach this issue.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 Annual Report of RINO International Corporation on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned officers of RINO International Corporation hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 financial condition and results of operations of RINO International
Corporation.




By:
                /s/
      Zou DejunZou
      DejunChief
      Executive Officer
                  (principal
      executive officer)By:
                /s/
      Jenny LiuJenny
      LiuChief
      Financial Officer
                  (principal
      financial officer)




By:
                /s/
      Yu LiYu
      LiChief
      Accounting Officer
                  (principal
      accounting officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to RINO International Corporation and will be retained by RINO
International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.





March 31,
2010
**Exhibit 10.11.9**

 

**Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement Renewal and Extension Acknowledgment between Quaker City Bank and Robert C. Teeling dated July 1, 2003.**

 

**QUAKER CITY BANK**

**CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT**

**RENEWAL AND EXTENSIONACKNOWLEDGMENT**

 

Name of Participant:    Robert C.Teeling 

 

The undersigned participant does hereby acknowledge that, attheir regularly scheduled meeting on June 19, 2003, the Board of Directors of Quaker City Bank acted to renew and extend the Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement with the undersigned participant to a full twenty-four (24) month term, untilJune 30, 2005. 

 

Dated this            1st             day of            July            , A.D.,            2003            .
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2942]


S.D. Warren Company; Notice of Authorization for Continued 
Project Operation

February 28, 2001.
    On January 22, 1999, S.D. Warren Company, licensee for the Dundee 
Project No. 2942, filed an application for a new or subsequent license 
pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's 
regulations thereunder. Project No. 2942 is located on the Presumpscot 
River in Cumberland County, Maine.
    The license for Project No. 2942 was issued for a period ending 
January 26, 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. 2942 is issued to 
S. D. Warren Company for a period effective January 27, 2001, through 
January 26, 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 January 27, 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 S. D. Warren Company is authorized to continue 
operation of the Dundee Project No. 2942 until such time as the 
Commission acts on its application for subsequent license.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5351 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Deloitte****Deloitte & Touche LLP**JPMorgan  Chase  Tower 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 1600 D a l l a s ,   TX  75201-6778  USA Tel: +1 214 840 7000 www.deloitte.com  **REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**Board of Directors and Shareholders EMC Mortgage Corporation We have examined management's assertions, included in paragraphs 1 through 4 in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that EMC Mortgage Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of The Bear Steams Companies Inc.) (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving first and second lien, prime and sub-prime residential mortgage loans, that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(i)C, (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), and (d)(4)(xv) which  management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to 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 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 the Platform is fairly stated in all material respects. /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP March 14, 2008
TBPE REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-1580                                          FAX (713) 651-0849
1100 LOUISIANA  SUITE 3800        HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218               TELEPHONE (713) 651-9191







CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.





As independent oil and gas consultants, Ryder Scott Company, L.P. hereby consents to all references to our firm's name and the inclusion of our report dated May 11, 2010 (reissued September 7, 2010) of the Estimated Future Reserves and Income Attributable to Certain Leasehold Interests as of February 28, 2010 of Mainland Resources Inc. (the "Reserve Report") as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for fiscal year ended February 28, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about November 9, 2010.





"Ryder Scott Company, L.P."Ryder Scott Company, L.P.
TBPE Firm License No. F-1580



Houston, Texas
November 9, 2010











1200,  530   8TH  AVENUE, S.W.                    CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 3S8              	TEL (403) 262-2799         FAX (403) 262-2790
621  17TH STREET, SUITE 1550                    DENVER, COLORADO 80293-1501      TEL (303) 623-9147          FAX (303) 623-4258
#### Clarence ALSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Dir. of D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6801.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 17, 2011.

*627Clarence Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong, 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:

Clarence Alston 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 Alston 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.*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2793 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2793

                     For the relief of Kris Murty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 1993

 Mr. Coleman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                     For the relief of Kris Murty.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELOCATION EXPENSES FOR KRIS MURTY.

    For the purpose of receiving reimbursement for relocation expenses 
under sections 5724 and 5724a of title 5, United States Code, Kris 
Murty of El Paso, Texas, an employee of the Department of the Army, is 
deemed to have been an employee transferred by the Department of the 
Army from one official station to another for permanent duty when he 
relocated from Houston, Texas, to Fort Bliss, Texas, in February 1985.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

    No amount exceeding 10 percent of a payment made pursuant to 
section 1 may be paid to or received by any agent or attorney in 
consideration for services rendered in connection with the payment. Any 
person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of 
an infraction and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided 
under title 18, United States Code.

                                 <all>
```
2009-1934.

#### State ex rel. Summit Cty. v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            30,109
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  34,059
<CASH>                                           1,496
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           3,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,817
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  8,912
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,817
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              1,537
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                (73)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     391
<BENEFITS>                                         460
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        192
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               440
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    763
<INCOME-TAX>                                       290
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                473
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       473
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0




</TABLE>