alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2436

RODNEY J. BROWNLOW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INFORMATION BUILDERS, INCORPORATED; GERALD COHEN; HARRY LERNER; DAVE KEMLER; LILA GOLDBERG; JULIE DAVIS; DAVE SMALL; SEAN MCCARTHY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-786-A) Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 5, 2003 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney J. Brownlow, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Alan Lindsay, Jessica Regan Schneider, SEYFARTH SHAW, Washington, D.C. for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Rodney J. Brownlow appeals the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to his former employer in his civil action in which he alleged constructive discharge, discriminatory discharge, discrimination with respect to other terms and conditions of his employment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeBrownlow v. Information Builders, Inc. , No. CA-02-786-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joshua Ralston, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
General Enterprise Ventures, Inc. for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2012 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 the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of General Enterprise Ventures
Inc.





|Date: March 29, 2023 |  |  | /s/ Joshua Ralston                      | 
|-------------------- |  |  | --------------------------------------- | 
|                     |  |  | Joshua Ralston, Chief Financial Officer |
STOLT OFFSHORE S.A.                                [LOGO OF STOLT OFFSHORE S.A.]

NEWS RELEASE

                      STOLT OFFSHORE S.A. WINS $125 MILLION
                    DEEPWATER CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN ANGOLA

LONDON, ENGLAND - MARCH 10, 2006 - Stolt Offshore S.A. (NASDAQ NM: SOSA; Oslo
Stock Exchange: STO), today announced that it had been awarded a contract valued
at approximately $125 million for a deepwater SURF installation project offshore
Angola. The installation work will be carried out by the Polar Queen and is
scheduled to take place during the second half of 2007.

********************************************************************************

Stolt Offshore S.A. is a seabed-to-surface engineering and construction
contractor for the offshore oil and gas industry worldwide. We plan, design and
deliver complex, integrated projects in harsh and challenging environments. We
operate internationally as one group - globally aware and locally sensitive,
sharing our expertise and experience to create innovative solutions. We are more
than solution providers, we are solution partners - ready to make long-term
investments in our people, assets, know-how and relationships in support of our
clients.

********************************************************************************

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS: Certain statements made in this press release may
include "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
These statements may be identified by the use of words like "anticipate",
"believe", "estimate", "expect", "intend", "may", "plan", "project", "will",
"should", "seek", and similar expressions. The forward-looking statements
reflect our current views and assumptions and are subject to risks and
uncertainties. The following factors, and others which are discussed in our
public filings and submissions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
are among those that may cause actual and future results and trends to differ
materially from our forward-looking statements: the general economic conditions
and competition in the markets and businesses in which we operate; our
relationship with significant clients; the outcome of legal proceedings;
uncertainties inherent in operating internationally; the impact of laws and
regulations; and operating hazards, including spills and environmental damage.
Many of these factors are beyond our ability to control or predict. Given these
factors, you should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements.

Contacts:
Julian Thomson
Stolt Offshore S.A.
UK +44 1932 773764
US  +1 877 603 0267 (toll free)
julian.thomson@acergy-group.com

Deborah Keedy
Stolt Offshore S.A.
UK +44 1932 773767
US  +1 877 603 0267 (toll free)
deborah.keedy@acergy-group.com

If you no longer wish to receive our press releases please contact:
kelly.good@acergy-group.com.
### §181. Rights of white men marrying Indian women; tribal property

No white man, not otherwise a member of any tribe of Indians, who may after August 9, 1888, marry an Indian woman, member of any Indian tribe in the United States, or any of its Territories except the Five Civilized Tribes in the Indian Territory, shall by such marriage after August 9, 1888, acquire any right to any tribal property, privilege, or interest whatever to which any member of such tribe is entitled.

(Aug. 9, 1888, ch. 818, §1, 25 Stat. 392.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            1644
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1651
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               60
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1651
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    44
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (57)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (57)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (57)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The Bank of Chenango *vs.*Cox and others.

1. An injunction may be granted at the suit of a mortgagee, to prevent the removal from the mortgaged premises of timber trees cut down in waste of the security before the service of the injunction, where the person against whom relief must be sought for the waste committed is insolvent, or where no redress can be obtained at law, or in equity, if the removal bo permitted, or where there is fraud.

2. But where the bill alleges neither of such considerations, and prays an account from the person who has committed the waste, an injunction will not be granted.

Bill to foreclose. Motion to modify injunction, so as to confine it to future waste from the time when it was issued.

*Messrs. Pennington*and *Dewitt,*for the motion.

*Mr. 8. JB. Ransom,*contra.

The Changellok.

The question presented on this motion is, whether an injunction should be granted at the suit of the- mortgagee, to prevent the removal from the mortgaged premises of timber trees cut down in waste of the security before the *service oí'*the injunction. Such injunctions will, sometimes, be granted, but only under special circumstances. *Watson*v. *Hunter, 5 Johns. Ch. R.*169; *Spear v. Cutter,*5 *Barb.*486*; Johnson v. White,*11 *Barb.*194; *Winship v. Pitts,*3 *Paige*259; *Ensign v. Colburn,*11 *Paige*503; *Emmons v. Hinderer,*9 *C. E. Green*39; *High on Injunctions,*§ 428. Where the person against whom relief must be sought for the waste committed, is insolvent, or where no redress can be obtained at law, or in equity, if the removal be permitted, the injunction may be granted. And so, too”, where there is fraud. But, where, as in the case before me, there is no allegation of insolvency, nor any evidence of fraud, nor any circumstance *453leading to the conclusion that no redress at law, or in equity, can be had, unless it be by injunction, and an account is prayed in the bill from the person who has committed the "vaste, the injunction should not bo granted. *Watson*v. *Hunter, supra.*A statement contained in one of the affidavits appended to the bill is relied on as evidence of fraud. But that statement is merely, that Dnnster, against whom the injunction was prayed and issued, endeavored, by his own personal application, to buy the trees standing on the property from Cox, who then owned the premises, but was unsuccessful, and he subsequently bought them through a real estate broker, lor the price of §125. The affidavit further states, that the felling of the trees cut down by Dnnster, has injured the property to the amount of §1000 or more. There is, in these statements, no evidence of fraud on the part of Dnnster, but the contrary. He appears to have fairly bought the trees, making the best bargain he could for them. There is no room for any suspicion of collusion between him and Cox.

The injunction will be modified, so as lo be confined to the limber standing or growing at the time of service of the injunction.
### §5364. Compacts

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall negotiate and enter into a written compact with each Indian Tribe participating in self-governance in a manner consistent with the trust responsibility of the Federal Government, treaty obligations, and the government-to-government relationship between Indian Tribes and the United States.

#### (b) Contents

A compact under subsection (a) shall—

(1) specify and affirm the general terms of the government-to-government relationship between the Indian Tribe and the Secretary; and

(2) include such terms as the parties intend shall control during the term of the compact.

#### (c) Amendment

A compact under subsection (a) may be amended only by agreement of the parties.

#### (d) Effective date

The effective date of a compact under subsection (a) shall be—

(1) the date of the execution of the compact by the parties; or

(2) such date as is mutually agreed upon by the parties.

#### (e) Duration

A compact under subsection (a) shall remain in effect—

(1) for so long as permitted by Federal law; or

(2) until termination by written agreement, retrocession, or reassumption.

#### (f) Existing compacts

An Indian Tribe participating in self-governance under this subchapter, as in effect on October 21, 2020, shall have the option at any time after that date—

(1) to retain its negotiated compact (in whole or in part) to the extent that the provisions of the compact are not directly contrary to any express provision of this subchapter; or

(2) to negotiate a new compact in a manner consistent with this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 93–638, title IV, §404, as added Pub. L. 116–180, title I, §101(e), Oct. 21, 2020, 134 Stat. 864.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5364, Pub. L. 93–638, title IV, §404, as added Pub. L. 103–413, title II, §204, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4275, related to identification of funds in annual budget request, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 116–180, title I, §101(e), Oct. 21, 2020, 134 Stat. 864. See section 5371 of this title. Such section was formerly classified to section 458dd of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as section 5364.
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0327 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. THOMAS JAMES LUCERO ,

Defendant and Appellant .**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee ’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including February 2 , 20 2 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 28 2022

12/28/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0327
#### § 3504.65 What happens to my bond if I do not meet my permit or lease obligations?

BLM will demand payment from your bond to cover any obligations on which you default. Your bond will be reduced accordingly. If the surety makes a payment, we will reduce the face amount of the surety bond and the surety's liability by the amount of the payment.
EXHIBIT 32.

                Certifications Pursuant to U. S. C. Section 1350

         The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial officer of Community Bankshares,  Inc., each hereby certifies that, to
the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form  10-Q of the  issuer  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of Sections  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  and that  information  contained  in the  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.

August 13, 2007


/s/ Samuel L. Erwin
------------------------------------------
Samuel L. Erwin
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ William W. Traynham
------------------------------------------
William W. Traynham
President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6952

RICHARD CLAUDE NODINE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden ACI; D.R. FREDERICK, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-01-1962-9-23) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 26, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Claude Nodine, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Richard Claude Nodine seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Nodine v. Miro , No. CR-01-1962-9-23 (D.S.C. May 24, 2002). We also deny Nodine’s motion for authorization to file a second or successive application for post-conviction relief in South Carolina courts. 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
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA creep model for metallic composites based on matrix testing: Application to Kanthal compositesAn anisotropic creep model is formulated for metallic composites with strong fibers and low to moderate fiber volume percent (less than 40 percent). The idealization admits no creep in the local fiber direction and assumes equal creep strength in longitudinal and transverse shear. Identification of the matrix behavior with that of the isotropic limit of the theory permits characterization of the composite through uniaxial creep tests on the matrix material. Constant and step-wise creep tests are required as a data base. The model provides an upper bound on the transverse creep strength of a composite having strong fibers embedded in a particular matrix material. Comparison of the measured transverse strength with the upper bound gives an assessment of the integrity of the composite. Application is made to a Kanthal composite, a model high-temperature composite system. Predictions are made of the creep response of fiber reinforced Kanthal tubes under interior pressure.Document ID19900015877Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBinienda, W. K.*(Akron Univ. OH., United States)*Robinson, D. N.*(Akron Univ. OH., United States)*Arnold, S. M.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Bartolotta, Paul A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1990Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-103172E-5550NAS 1.15:103172Accession Number90N25193Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-379PROJECT: RTOP 510-01-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900015877.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          11,661
<SECURITIES>                                    17,919
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                       299
<INVENTORY>                                      5,671
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,329
<PP&E>                                           6,896
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,932
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           206
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,303
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,688
<SALES>                                         11,602
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,602
<CGS>                                            4,387
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,514
<INCOME-TAX>                                       568
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                946
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       946
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 32

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

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penford Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Thomas D.
Malkoski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven O. Cordier, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that
to his knowledge:

            (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 results of operations of the
Company.





/s/ Thomas D. Malkoski
---------------------------------------------
Thomas D. Malkoski
Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  July 14, 2004





/s/ Steven O. Cordier
---------------------------------------------
Steven O. Cordier
Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  July 14, 2004
#### § 3210.11 Does a lease segregated from an agreement or plan receive any benefits from unitization of the committed portion of the original lease?

The new segregated lease stands alone and does not receive any of the benefits provided to the portion committed to the unit. We will not give you an extension for the eliminated portion of the lease based on status of the lands committed to the unit, including production in commercial quantities or the existence of a producible well.
#### Lewis S. Seeley and Others v. Dean C. Osborne.

Motion granted. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.