alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Quédese en casa si está enfermo, 

excepto para buscar atención médica.

Lávese las manos frecuentemente 

con agua y jabón por al menos 

20 segundos.

Cúbrase la nariz y la boca con un pañuelo 

desechable al toser o estornudar 

y luego bótelo a la basura. 

Limpie y desinfecte los objetos y las 

superficies que se tocan frecuentemente.

Evite tocarse los ojos, la nariz y la boca.

Evite el contacto cercano con las personas enfermas.

Ayude a prevenir la propagación de enfermedades respiratorias como el COVID-19

DETENGA LA PROPAGACIÓN 

DE LOS MICROBIOS

DETENGA LA PROPAGACIÓN 

DE LOS MICROBIOS

cdc.gov/COVID19

316251-A March 30, 2020 4:40 PM
CS311042-A

LA VIDA ES MEJOR CON LAS

www.cdc.gov/lavadodemanos

Este material fue elaborado por los CDC. La campaña “La Vida es Mejor con las Manos Limpias” es posible gracias a una

asociación entre la Fundación de los CDC, GOJO y Staples. Los CDC y el HHS no respaldan productos, servicios ni 

empresas comerciales.

LAS MANOS 

LIMPIAS LO 

MANTIENEN SANO.

 Lávese las manos con agua 

y jabón por al menos 

20 SEGUNDOS.
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, each of the undersigned certifies that this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
GoAmerica, Inc.



                                            /s/ Aaron Dobrinsky
                                            ------------------------------------
Dated:   August 2, 2002                     Aaron Dobrinsky
                                            Chief Executive Officer



                                            /s/ Francis J. Elenio
                                            ------------------------------------
Dated:   August 2, 2002                     Francis J. Elenio
                                            Chief Financial Officer
#### § 19.2 Contact person for Missing Children Penalty Mail Program.

The DOJ contact person for the Missing Children Penalty Mail Program is: Patricia Schellman, General Services Staff, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 10th and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20530, telephone number (202) 633-2353.
**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 **

|                                     |                                                                                            |               |
|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                                     |                                                                                            |
|                                |                                                                                       |          |
| Date: April                17, 2006 | By:                                                                                   | /s/ William Rigsby |
|                                     | William                Rigsby                                                                   |
|                                     | President,                  Chief Executive OfficerAnd                  Chief Financial Officer |

|                                           |                                                |                                               |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |                                                |
|                                      |                                           |                                          |
| Date:  April                17, 2006 | By:                                       | /s/                Russ                Christensen |
|                                           | Russ                Christensen                     |
|                                           | Acting                  Principal Financial Officer |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7148

BENJAMIN L. CAMM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-02-826-2)

Submitted: December 17, 2003 Decided: July 27, 2004

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin L. Camm, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM: 

Benjamin L. Camm, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Camm

that failure to file timely objections to the recommendation would

waive appellate review of an order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Camm failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation. 

The failure to file timely objections to a magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation waives the right to appellate

review. Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003). Camm

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after

receiving proper notice. 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BRIAN WALKER,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 487, 2018

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 0802005060 (S)

§

§

§

§

Submitted: December 20, 2018

Decided: January 9, 2019

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response 

to the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On September 20, 2018, the appellant, Brian Walker, filed a notice of 

appeal from a September 14, 2018 Superior Court order sentencing him for a 

violation of probation. The Senior Court Clerk advised Walker to pay the Supreme 

Court filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by October 5, 2018. 

Walker was warned that a notice to show cause would issue if the filing fee was not 

paid or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis was not filed by October 5, 2018. 

(2) Walker did not pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. On October 23, 2018, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing
2

Walker to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to pay 

the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

(3) In his response to the notice to show cause, Walker stated that he had 

not been able to go to the library or obtain notarization of his paperwork, but would 

be able to do so if he was granted an extension. On December 4, 2018, the Senior 

Court Clerk informed Walker that the notice to show cause would be held in 

abeyance pending his filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by December 

19, 2018. Walker was warned that his appeal would be dismissed if he failed to file 

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by December 19, 2018. Walker has failed to 

pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In light of Walker’s 

failure to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, this appeal 

must be dismissed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Caprock Canyon  Investments,
Inc.,  on Form 10- QSB for the  period  ending  June 30,  2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

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

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


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31-2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200215 U.S.C. SECTION 7241

 

I, Stephen R.Wherry , certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Goldfield Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.   (paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986)

c.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d.   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 23, 2004

 

```
/s/ Stephen R. Wherry
Stephen R. Wherry
Vice President, Treasurer,
    Assistant Secretary and
    Chief Financial Officer
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6463

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN JORDAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:09-cr-00104-F-2; 5:12-cv-00092-F)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, Seth Morgan 

Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Edward D. Gray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Jordan seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Jordan 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 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 115.61 Staff and agency reporting duties. ( a ) The agency shall require all staff to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information regarding an incident of sexual abuse or sexual harassment that occurred in a facility, whether or not it is part of the agency; retaliation against inmates or staff who reported such an incident; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident or retaliation.
( b ) Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials, staff shall not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than to the extent necessary, as specified in agency policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and management decisions.
( c ) Unless otherwise precluded by Federal, State, or local law, medical and mental health practitioners shall be required to report sexual abuse pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section and to inform inmates of the practitioner's duty to report, and the limitations of confidentiality, at the initiation of services.
( d ) If the alleged victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the agency shall report the allegation to the designated State or local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.
( e ) The facility shall report all allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment, including third-party and anonymous reports, to the facility's designated investigators.
### §1423h. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) In general

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the functions and responsibilities of the Secretary under this subchapter and the Agreement $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

#### (b) Commission

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out functions and responsibilities of the United States Section 1 $150,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

#### (c) Alaskan cooperative management program

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this subchapter and the Agreement in Alaska $150,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

(Pub. L. 92–522, title V, §509, as added Pub. L. 109–479, title IX, §902(a), Jan. 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3665.)

1 So in original. Probably should not be capitalized.
# C_2011226EN.01001003.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1, Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 27 April 2011 — Susana Natividad Martínez Álvarez v Consejería de la Presidencia, Justicia e Igualdad del Principado de Asturias

(Case C-194/11)

2011/C 226/19

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1, Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Susana Natividad Martínez Álvarez

Applicant:

Defendant: Consejería de la Presidencia, Justicia e Igualdad del Principado de Asturias

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in relation to Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding a domestic provision (such as Article 502(4) of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial 6/1985 of 1 July) which provides that when temporary incapacity for work arises during leave which has already started, the leave can be deemed interrupted only if such incapacity involves admission to hospital, thus excluding other situations of incapacity, in which there would be no right to take the leave at a later date?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

1

---
# C_2011238EN.01000201.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Palermo (Italy) lodged on 28 February 2011 — Amia SpA, in liquidation v Provincia Regionale di Palermo

(Case C-97/11)

2011/C 238/02

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Palermo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amia SpA, in liquidation

Applicant:

Defendant: Provincia Regionale di Palermo

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In the light of the judgment in Case C-172/08 (1), may paragraphs 26 and 31 of Article 3 of Law No 549 of 28 December 1995 be treated as not to be applied because they are contrary to Article 10 of Directive 1999/31/EC (2) and similarly because they are contrary to Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/35/EC (3)?

1

2

3

---

(1)  Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2010 (Case C-172/08 Pontina Ambiente v Regione Lazio [2010] ECR I-0000).

1

Pontina Ambiente

Regione Lazio

(2)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35.

3

---
EH094

EH088

EH094

EH064

EH095

EH095

EH096

Weasel Creek Lane

Beaver Creek Road

Galzagorry Road

Hahn Road

Cactus Lane

Silos Road

Weasel Creek Lane

Filson Road

Muffley Lane

Cemetery Road

Cox Lane

Pole Creek Road

Cox Lane

Elkhorns

Travel

Plan Area

Canyon

Ferry

Reservoir

The

Silos

Township 8 NorthTownship 7 North

Range 1 West

Range 1 East

36

31

1 6

Township 9 NorthTownship 8 North

Range 1 West

Range 1 East

36 31

1

6

Winston
SCPW-20-0000509 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

IN THE MATTER OF INDIVIDUALS IN CUSTODY 

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

“MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S ORDERS” 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., 

and Chief Judge Ginoza, assigned by reason of vacancy, 

with Wilson, J., dissenting1) 

On August 24, 2020, in its response to the motion for 

clarification and/or reconsideration filed by respondent Nolan 

P. Espinda, Director of the Department of Public Safety (“DPS”), 

the Office of the Public Defender (“OPD”) included a section 

entitled “Motion to Compel Compliance with this Court’s Orders” 

(“Motion to Compel Compliance”). The OPD sought various forms 

of relief. 

On August 27, 2020, DPS and Prosecuting Attorney 

Dwight Nadamoto each filed responses to the Motion to Compel 

Compliance. The responses addressed the issues or concerns 

raised by the OPD, and requested that the court deny the Motion 

to Compel Compliance. 

 

1 A dissent by Wilson, J., is forthcoming. 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-20-0000509

01-SEP-2020

11:31 AM
2

Upon consideration of the Motion to Compel Compliance, 

the respective responses, and the record in this matter, the 

requests in the Motion to Compel Compliance are not within the 

scope of the relief previously ordered by this court or are 

otherwise not sufficiently supported. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Compel 

Compliance is denied. 

Additionally, this court notes that the daily lists 

provided by DPS identifying the names of released inmates appear 

to include inmates released on grounds other than this court’s 

orders. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, September 1, 2020. 

 /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

 /s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

 /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza