alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3763

___________

Kent Johnson; Jerry A. Johnson, *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. *

*

Wilfred George Peterson; Donald *

Edwin Peterson; Robert E. Lee, * Appeal from the United States

Esq.; E. Roger Dewaard; Dewaard * District Court for the

Investment Corporation; Shawn * Northern District of Iowa.

Mallen; Wright County Farm *

Service Agency, doing business as * [UNPUBLISHED]

The Commodity Credit Corporation; *

John Does; Vern Elston, Sheriff of *

Wright County, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: November 5, 1998

 Filed: December 4, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern 1

District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Paul A.

Zoss, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

Kent Johnson and Jerry Johnson appeal the district court’s dismissal of their

1

civil suit against Wilfred George Peterson and others. After careful review of the

record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude the district court’s judgment is correct, and

an extended discussion is unwarranted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 571.63 Denial of request. ( a ) When an inmate's request is denied by the Warden, the inmate will receive written notice and a statement of reasons for the denial. The inmate may appeal the denial through the Administrative Remedy Procedure (28 CFR part 542, subpart B).
( b ) When an inmate's request for consideration under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) or 3582(c)(1)(A) is denied by the General Counsel, the General Counsel shall provide the inmate with a written notice and statement of reasons for the denial. This denial constitutes a final administrative decision.
( c ) When the Director, Bureau of Prisons, denies an inmate's request, the Director shall provide the inmate with a written notice and statement of reasons for the denial within 20 workdays after receipt of the referral from the Office of General Counsel. A denial by the Director constitutes a final administrative decision.
( d ) Because a denial by the General Counsel or Director, Bureau of Prisons, constitutes a final administrative decision, an inmate may not appeal the denial through the Administrative Remedy Procedure.
[59 FR 1238, Jan. 7, 1994, as amended at 78 FR 13479, Feb. 28, 2013]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Investment Company Act Release No. 35090; File No. 812-15477

GC Advisors LLC and Golub Capital Private Credit Fund

January 16, 2024

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).

ACTION: Notice.

Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the

“Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i) and section 61(a) of the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain closed-end management

investment companies that have elected to be regulated as business development companies to

issue multiple classes of shares with varying sales loads and asset-based distribution and/or 

service fees. 

Applicants: GC Advisors LLC and Golub Capital Private Credit Fund.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 3, 2023, and amended on September 28, 2023.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless

the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by 

emailing the SEC’s Secretary at Secretarys-Office@sec.gov and serving the Applicants with a 

copy of the request by email, if an email address is listed for the relevant applicant below, or

personally or by mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing 

requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 12, 2024, and should 

be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a

certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature 

of the writer’s interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the 
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing 

may request notification by emailing the Commission’s Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: Secretarys-Office@sec.gov. The Applicants: Joshua M. 

Levinson, jlevinson@golubcapital.com and Nathan Briggs, Nathan.Briggs@stblaw.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shayna Gilmore, Senior Counsel, or Kyle R. 

Ahlgren, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel’s 

Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants’ representations, legal analysis, and

condition, please refer to Applicants’ amended and restated application, dated September 28,

2023, which may be obtained via the Commission’s website by searching for the file number at 

the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the 

SEC’s EDGAR system. The SEC’s EDGAR system may be searched at 

https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also call the

SEC’s Public Reference Room at (202) 551-8090.

For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated

authority.

Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.
# **Hercules Incorporated**

# **EXHIBIT 31.1**

# ****

# **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

## **SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Craig A. Rogerson, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Hercules Incorporated;

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 ofthe 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)   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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 auditorsand the audit committee of registrant's board of directors:

(a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.

Date:  March 15, 2004

/s/ Craig A. Rogerson

Craig A. Rogerson

President and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 29, 2014

s0721

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2014

148833

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148833

COA: 312456

Saginaw CC: 11-035905-FH

SCOTT LOUIS KOHLHOFF,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of People v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073) is pending on appeal before this Court 

and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
#### § 626.3 Policy.

Pavement shall be designed to accommodate current and predicted traffic needs in a safe, durable, and cost effective manner.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report of PremierWest Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James
M. Ford, the President & 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) 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 for the period
certified.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the Report or under such
Acts.



|                   |  |  |  |  |  |                                    
|------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ James M. Ford                  
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | James M. Ford                      
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | President & Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

May 13, 2021

In the Matter of

Kingold Jewelry, Inc.

File No. 500-1

ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF

TRADING

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the public interest and the 

protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Kingold Jewelry, Inc. 

(“KGJI” or “the Company”) (CIK No. 0001089531) because of questions concerning the 

adequacy and accuracy of publicly available information about the Company’s assets and 

operations and unusual and unexplained trading activity affecting the market for its securities.

KGJI has failed to restate its financial statements for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 fiscal years after 

its auditor resigned and withdrew its reports on those financial statements and has not filed any 

periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2019. In midFebruary 2021, in the absence of any publicly available information from the media or current 

information from the Company for about six months, the share price and trading volume of KGJI 

increased significantly.
2

KGJI is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in Wuhan, Hubei 

Province, People’s Republic of China. KGJI’s common stock is quoted and traded on OTC 

Link, whose parent company is OTC Markets Group, Inc., under the ticker symbol KGJI, and as 

of April 19, 2021, had nine market makers and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of 

Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3) .

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors 

require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed Company.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed Company is suspended for the 

period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 14, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 27, 2021.

By the Commission.

Vanessa A. Countryman

 Secretary
###### Editorial Note on Part 1274a

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1274a appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and 68 FR 10359, Mar. 5, 2003.

#### § 1274a.10 Penalties.

The regulations pertaining to the imposition of penalties for violations of the provisions of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act are contained in 8 CFR part 274a and 28 CFR part 68.

[73 FR 10136, Feb. 26, 2008]
#### Earl Shewman, Respondent, v. Carl Frey et al., Appellants.

Present— Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.
|   | 1. | I      am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Royal Energy      Resources, Inc. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Attached      to this certification is Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended November 30,      2008, a periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with      the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which      contains condensed financialstatements. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | I      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      periodic report containing the condensed financial statements fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange      Act, and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations      of the issuer for the periodspresented. |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| December      7, 2009 | /s/ Jacob Roth                   |
|-----------------------|----------------------------------|
|                  | Jacob      Roth                  |
|                  | Chief      Executive Officer and |
|                  | Chief      Financial Officer     |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6479** 

GLENN CALVIN LAWHORN, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. E. E. WRIGHT, JR. , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Jackson L. Kiser , Senior District Judge. ( 7:12

- cv - 00203

- JLK

- RSB )

Submitted : July 18, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Glen n Calvin Lawhorn , Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Glenn Calvin Lawhorn, Jr., 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. 28 U.S.C. § 22 53(c)(1) (A) (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 stand ard 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 petition 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 Lawhorn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argumen t because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Hans Bie, Respondent, v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Appellant.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OR EQUIVALENT

PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth
below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report of Hitachi, Ltd. on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Takashi Miyoshi, Executive Vice President and Executive Officer of Hitachi, Ltd., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Hitachi, Ltd.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                                                                
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:    June 24, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/ Takashi Miyoshi                                            
|                       |  |     |  | Name:         Takashi Miyoshi                                  
|                       |  |     |  | Title:           Executive Vice President and Executive
Officer
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T04:46:54-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
**Exhibit 20**
**Letter to Securities and Exchange Commission**
**March 20, 2002**
**United States Securities and Exchange Commission****Washington, DC 20549**
**Dear Commission,**
Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) has represented to Ablest Inc.,that the audit of the financial statements included in this Form 10-Kwas subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S.accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance thatthe engagement was conducted in compliance with professionalstandards, and that there was appropriate continuity of Andersenpersonnel working on the audit and availability of national officeconsultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates ofAndersen was not relevant to this audit.
Respectfully,
/s/ Mark P. KashmanianMark P. KashmanianTreasurer and Chief Accounting OfficerAblest, Inc.
### §465. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, act Aug. 21, 1935, ch. 593, §5, 49 Stat. 668, related to jurisdiction of States in acquired lands. See section 320104 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
### §§595, 596. Repealed. Feb. 28, 1933, ch. 131, §1, 47 Stat. 1349

Sections, R.S. §§2461, 2462, penalized cutting and provided for forfeiture of vessels carrying away timber on lands reserved or purchased to supply timber for Navy.
(March 17, 1943.)

#### In the Matter of Adam Konopka, Petitioner, against Henry E. Bruckman et al., Constituting the New York State Liquor Authority, Respondents.

Present — Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7128

CHARLES COOPER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1354-AM)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: July 24, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Cooper v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., No. CA96-1354-AM (E.D. Va. June 11, 1997). We deny Appellant’s motion for

appointment of counsel and 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
#### Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, Respondent, v. Midland Terrace Corporation et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Cars-well, Johnston and Adel, JJ.