alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39094-39096, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43479, Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5479, Feb. 1, 2011.

§ 40.131 Corporate surety. ( a ) Surety bonds required under the provisions of this part may be given only with corporate sureties holding certificates of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury as acceptable sureties on Federal bonds. Each bond and each extension of coverage of bond shall at the time of filing be accompanied by a power of attorney authorizing the agent or officer who executed the bond to so act on behalf of the surety. The appropriate TTB officer who is authorized to approve the bond may, whenever he deems it necessary, require additional evidence of the authority of the agent or officer to execute the bond or extension of coverage of bond. The power of attorney shall be prepared on a form provided by the surety company and executed under the corporate seal of the company. If the power of attorney submitted is other than a manually signed document it shall be accompanied by a certificate of its validity. Limitations concerning corporate sureties are prescribed by the Secretary in Treasury Department Circular No. 570, as revised. The surety shall have no interest whatever in the business covered by the bond.
( b ) Treasury Department Circular No. 570 (Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and as Acceptable Reinsuring Companies) is published in the Federal Register annually as of the first workday in July. As they occur, interim revisions of the circular are published in the Federal Register. Copies may be obtained from the Audit Staff, Bureau of Government Financial Operations, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20226.
(61 Stat. 649, 72 Stat. 1421, as amended; 31 U.S.C. 9304, 9306; 26 U.S.C. 5711; 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (80 Stat. 383, as amended))
[T.D. 6961, 33 FR 9488, June 28, 1968. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975 and amended by T.D. ATF-92, 46 FR 46921, Sept. 23, 1981]
#### Anna J. Doyle, Respondent, v. Bertha Sommer et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Present — Hagarty, Carswell, ■Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.
(No. 73-CC-282

#### County of Cook, and Cook County Department of Public Aid, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

*Opinion filed November 9, 1973.*

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney of Cook County, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7009

KENNETH OTENG DUODU,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICH DOTSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00410-AWA-LRL)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Oteng Duodu, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7009 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Oteng Duodu seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Duodu’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

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)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Duodu has not made 

the requisite showing. See Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 619-21 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding 

that Vienna Convention claims must first be presented to state court to satisfy exhaustion 

of state court remedies). 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7009 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                             332
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                       498
<INVENTORY>                                      5,707
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,719
<PP&E>                                           9,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,732
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,993
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,161)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,564
<SALES>                                          4,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,724
<CGS>                                            3,409
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   623
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     3
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (50)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,322)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.43)
         

</TABLE>
### Part C—General Provisions

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–315, title V, §502(a)(1), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3331, redesignated part B of this subchapter as part C of this subchapter.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part C consisted of sections 1104 to 1104k and related to teacher scholarships and fellowships prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 105–244.
Editorial Note on Part 44
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 44 appear by T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43480, Aug. 20, 2001, and T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30801-30803, May 8, 2002.

§ 44.67 Payment of tax. ( a ) *General.* The taxes on tobacco products, and cigarette papers and tubes with respect to which the evidence described in § 44.66 is not timely furnished shall become immediately due and payable. The taxes shall be paid to TTB, with sufficient information to identify the taxpayer, the nature and purpose of the payment, and the articles covered by the payment. (TTB Form 5000.24 may be used for this purpose.)
( b ) *Large cigars.* The amount of tax liability on large cigars shall be based on the maximum tax rate prescribed in § 40.21 of this part, unless the person liable for the tax establishes that a lower tax rate is applicable.
(All recordkeeping requirements have been approved under OMB Control No. 1512-0180) [T.D. ATF-80, 46 FR 18311, Mar. 24, 1981, as amended by T.D. ATF-232, 51 FR 28088, Aug. 5, 1986; T.D. ATF-243, 51 FR 43194, Dec. 1, 1986; T.D. ATF-251, 52 FR 19341, May 22, 1987; T.D. ATF-307, 55 FR 52745, Dec. 21, 1990; T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39093, July 27, 2001]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           47754
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             473
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 74659
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     153897
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            7457
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              7469
<LOANS>                                         416067
<ALLOWANCE>                                       4168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  723331
<DEPOSITS>                                      646796
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               6292
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         49840
<OTHER-SE>                                       20403
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  723331
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  30452
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 8216
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 38668
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               12494
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               12518
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            26150
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      910
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  11
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  14957
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  12700
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       12700
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7672
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.81
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.70
<LOANS-NON>                                       2080
<LOANS-PAST>                                        46
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   246
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3672
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      576
<RECOVERIES>                                       162
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 4168
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              4168
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Martin. Michael (OST) HOT - O .^T - f^nc>0 - W'^^Ci 

From: seitzl@verizon.net 

Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:44 PIVI 

To: EAS (OST) 

Subject: Altoona-Blair County Airport 

Whatever carrier you decide, I would suggest putting on a very early flight to Dulles. 

Many individuals cannot make their connections, due to the fact the flight leaves Altoona too late and also the 

return flight should be more convenient. 

I travel to Aruba 2 to 3 times a year and have to fly out of State College, BWI or Dulles. If I fly out of the later 

two airports, I have to drive the day before. 

My comments probably do not mean much or carry much weight, but I thought I would give it a shot. 

LuAnn Seitz
EXHIBIT 32



McDATA Corporation



Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of McDATA Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Companys Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |  |  |                                                             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Dated: August 23, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ JOHN A. KELLEY, JR.                                     
|                       |  |  |  | John A. Kelley, Jr.                                         
|                       |  |  |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer             
|                       |  | 
|Dated: August 23, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ ERNEST J. SAMPIAS                                       
|                       |  |  |  | Ernest J. Sampias                                           
|                       |  |  |  | Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
USGSHomeContactUSGSSearchUSGS

Data Series 665

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |            U.S. Geological Survey                                                URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/665/html/acronyms.html            Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web Contact                        Page Last Modified: Friday, February 10, 2012, 11:26:56 AM
NEW YORK, NY TYSONS CORNER. VA CHICAGO.IL STAMFORD, CT PARSIPPANY. N..J
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

AFFILIATE OFFICES MUMBAI, INDIA

ByHand Delivery Mr. Paul L. Gretch KELLEY DRYE 0( WARREN LLP
3050 K STREET, N.W. SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007
(202) 342-8400

September 2,2010

Director, Office ofInternational Aviation 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 FACSIMILE (202) 342-8451 www.kelleydrye.com

DIRECT LINE: (202) 342-8528 EMAIL: dfisher@kelleydrye.com

;'-'.J



# - .. w w

Re: Request for Blanket Route Integration Authority, OST-2005-22228 Dear Mr. Gretch: In response to the notice issued bythe Department ofTransportation on August 27,2010, United Parcel Service Co. ("UPS") hereby files this letter requesting renewal ofits blanket route integration certificate authority for an indefinite duration. To the extent necessary, UPS invokes the automatic extension provisions oftheAdministrative Procedure, specifically 5 U.S.C. 558(c), as implemented by 14 C.F.R. Part 377. UPS fully supports the Department's decision to further streamline the licensing procedures for international authority and appreciates the Department's consideration ofthis request.

cc: Esta Rosenberg Thuy Cooper All persons on attached service list Sincerely, 

# !MLfWkky- Danielle K. Fisher Attorney for United Parcel Service Co.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythat on September 2,2010, I served the foregoing letterby electronic mail upon the following persons: carlnelson@aa.com sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com scott.mcclain@,delta.com sametta.c.bamett@delta.com kguinn@pillsburywinthrop.com rbkeiner@crowell.com rnrosia@crowell.com bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com jeffrey.manley@united.com bob.kneisley@wnco.com msinick@ssd.com cdonley@ssd.com gbleopard@fedex.com nssparks@fedex.com dvaughan@kelleydrye.com dfisher@kelleydrye.com kevin.montgomery@polaraircago.com jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com lhalloway@crowell.com efaberman@wileyrein.com mroller@rollerbauer.com howard.kass@usairways.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com sophychen@hklaw.com david.heffeman@wilmerhale.com bill@meituslaw.com mgoldman@sgbdc.com rsilverberg@sgbd.com

DCOI/FISHDI4260ClO.! dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com mcmillin@woa.com eskraft@jamhoff.com dpdean@jamhoff.com jyoung@yklaw.com dkirstein@yklaw.com robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com agoerlick@ggh-airlaw.com ben.graves@evergreenaviation.com brian.gillman@mesa-air.com mlbenge@zsrlaw.com russell.pommer@atlasair.com cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com pmurphy@lopmurphy.com lachter@erols.com slachter@lachter-clements.com matwood@sherblackwell.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com gmurphy@crowell.com russell.bailey@alpa.org donna.kooperstein@ugdoj.gov dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil john.allen@faa.gov byerlyj@state.gov paul.gretch@dot.gov info@airlineinfo.com

Da'nielle K. Fisher
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Sigma Designs, Inc.; and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                     |   |   |   |                                                   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   |   |   |   /s/ Thomas E. Gay III                      |
| Dated: May 25, 2012 |   |   |   | Thomas E. Gay IIIChief Financial Officer and Secretary |
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Morris S. Arnold, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ABRAHAM FLORES-ANGELES, Defendant - Appellant. No. 11-10248 D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00506-SRB-4
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: ARNOLD, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Appellant Abraham Flores-Angeles (“Flores-Angeles”) appeals his conviction and sentence for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1203 (Hostage Taking and 

# FILED
SEP 19 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Conspiracy to Commit Hostage Taking), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Possessing, Using, and Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence), and 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) (Harboring Ille gal Aliens). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Flores-Angeles argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1)excluding I-213 immigration forms from evidence, and failing to allow FloresAngeles to use these forms to cross-examine witnesses; and (2) imposing on Flores-Angeles a sentence of 132 months imprisonment. A district court abuses its discretion “when it makes an error of law, [when it] rests its decision on clearly erroneous fi ndings of fact, or when we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Hinkson , 585 F.3d 1247, 1283 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even applying this normal abuse of discretion standard rather than the plain error sta ndard advocated by the Appellee, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the immigration forms from evidence. Defense counsel’s explanation of the forms’ relevance, even assuming it was offered in a timely manner, does not convi nce us that the district court erred.The district court also did not abuse its discretion in sentencing FloresAngeles to 132 months in prison. See United States v. Ressam , 679 F.3d 1069,3 1089 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (explaining that a sentence is reasonable if “the record as a whole reflects rational and m eaningful consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)”) (internal quotation marks omitted). AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 41

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 41 (formerly part 275) appear at T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39093, July 27, 2001.

#### § 41.231 Persons required to qualify.

Except as otherwise provided in § 41.233, every person, before commencing business as an importer of processed tobacco, must apply for, and obtain, either a permit as an importer of processed tobacco or, if the person holds a TTB permit as an importer of tobacco products, an amendment to the existing permit authorizing the importation of processed tobacco under such permit, in accordance with the provisions of this subpart.
#### § 24.317 Sugar record.

A proprietor who receives, stores, or uses sugar shall maintain a record of receipt and use. The record will show the date of receipt, from whom received, and the kind and quantity. Invoices covering purchases will be retained. When sugar is used for chaptalization (Brix adjustment), amelioration or sweetening, the record will show the date, kind, and quantity used. The sugar record will also show sugar used in the production of allied products and any sugar removed from the wine premises. At the close of each reporting period, the account will be balanced and the quantity of each kind of sugar remaining on hand will be shown.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1381, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5367))

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1512-0298)

[T.D. ATF-299, 55 FR 24989, June 19, 1990, as amended by T.D. ATF-338, 58 FR 19065, Apr. 12, 1993]