alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6233

VINCENT LAMONT MARTIN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

HELEN FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia

Parole Board; DAVID HARKER, Vice-Chairman of

the Virginia Parole Board; CAROLE SIEVERS;

HERBERT COULTON; MICHAEL HAWES, Members of the

Virginia Parole Board,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-03-401-3)

Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004

Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brent A. Jackson, HILL, TUCKER, MARSH & JACKSON, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General,

Richard C. Vorhis, Assistant Attorney General, William W. Muse,

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Vincent L. Martin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.*

 We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on

December 19, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on January 28,

2004. Because Martin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

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
§ 3902.25 Corporations. Corporate officers or authorized attorneys-in-fact who represent applicants must provide to the BLM a signed statement that: ( a ) Names the state or territory of incorporation;
( b ) Lists the name and citizenship of, and percentage of stock owned, held, or controlled by, any stockholder owning, holding, or controlling more than 10 percent of the stock of the corporation, and certifies that the statement is true;
( c ) Lists the names of the officers authorized to act on behalf of the corporation; and
( d ) Certifies that the corporation's acreage holdings, and those of any stockholder identified under paragraph (b) of this section, do not exceed the acreage limits in § 3901.20 of this chapter.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



I, Martin L. Heimbigner, Chief Financial
Officer of theMaven, Inc.  (the “Company”), hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended  June 30, 2018, which this certification accompanies (the “Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: September 28, 2018 |  | /s/ Martin L. Heimbigner
|------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                          |  | Martin L. Heimbigner    
|                          |  | Chief Financial Officer 



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 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. This written statement accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by reference into any filing of theMaven, Inc. under
the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
in such filing.
§ 3602.11 How do I request a sale of mineral materials? ( a ) You may submit a written request for sale of mineral materials to the BLM office with jurisdiction over the site containing the materials. No particular form is required for this request.
( b ) BLM also may initiate a sale without a request under paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) You must pay a processing fee as provided in §§ 3602.31(b) and 3602.44(f). If the request is for mineral materials that are from a community pit or common use area this requirement does not apply.
[66 FR 58901, Nov. 23, 2001, as amended at 70 FR 58878, Oct. 7, 2005; 72 FR 50888, Sept. 5, 2007]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901

The Honorable Kathryn Montes Morgan Chairwoman Tejon Indian Tribe 1731 Hasti-Acres Drive Bakersfield, CA 93309
Dear ChairwomanMorgan: 

## DEC 1 8 2914

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 and the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordinationwith Indian Tribes, I would like to invite the Tejon Indian Tribe to engage in government-to-government consultation on a proposed action and an actionEPAis considering to reclassify the SanJoaquinValley nonattainment area from "moderate"nonattainmentto "serious" nonattainment for two National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.s).
The San Joaquin Valley is currently classified "moderate"nonattainmentfor two PM2.s NAAQS established in 1997 and 2006. Forthe 1997 PM2.s NAAQS, EPA evaluated air quality data and determined that it is notpossible for the San Joaquin Valley to attain the 1997 PM2.s NAAQS by the applicable attainment date ofAprilS, 2015. Consistent withthis determination, EPA is proposing to reclassify the SanJoaquin Valley as "serious" nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.s NAAQS. This reclassification would establish a new attainment date ofDecember 31, 2015 and outline new air quality planning requirements.
Forthe 2006 PM2.s NAAQS, EPA is currently evaluating air quality and modeling analyses regarding the ability ofthe San Joaquin Valleyto attain the 2006 PM2.s NAAQS bythe applicable attainment date. Consistent with this evaluation, EPA is also considering actionto reclassify the SanJoaquin Valley as Serious nonattainmentfor the 2006 PM2.s NAAQS. Similarto the 1997 PM2.s NAAQS, a reclassification action for the 2006 PM2.s NAAQS would establish new attainment dates and outline new air quality planning requirements.
These reclassifications would also lower the applicable "major source" thresholds for the purposes ofthe nonattainment new source reviewprogram and the Title V operating permit program from its current level of 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy, potentially subjecting more stationary sources to these requirements. The reclassifications may also lowerthe de minimis threshold for the Clean Air Act's General Conformityrequirement from 100tpy to 70 tpy. Underthe General Conformity requirement, Federal agencies bearthe responsibility ofdetermining conformity ofactions in nonattainment and maintenance areas that require Federal permits, approvals, orfunding.
To ensure that the interests and concerns ofthe Tejon Indian Tribe are considered, I would like to invite you or your designated consultationrepresentative to engage in government-to-government consultation with EPA. To request further information, orto initiate consultation, please have your staffcontact Mr. Kerry Drake, Associate Director, AirDivision, at (415) 947-4157 or by electronic mail at

Printed on Recycled Paper

### drake.kerry@epa.gov. Ifyou desire government-to-government consultation with EPA, we respectfully request that you notify us by January 16, 2015. Thank you and I look forward to receiving your input.
Sincerely,

DeborahJordan Director, Air Division
Document

Exhibit 4.2 
DESCRIPTION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK 
The 5,200,000 shares of capital stock authorized by Security Federal Corporation's articles of incorporation are divided into two classes, consisting of 5,000,000 shares of common stock (par value $.01 per share) and 200,000 shares of serial preferred stock (par value $.01 per share). As of March 29, 2021, there were 3,252,884 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding and no shares of our preferred stock issued and outstanding.
Common Stock
General. Each share of common stock has the same relative rights and is identical in all respects with each other share of the common stock. Each holder of common stock is entitled to one vote for each share held on all matters voted upon by stockholders, subject to certain limitations.
Liquidation or Dissolution. In the unlikely event of the liquidation or dissolution of Security Federal Corporation, the holders of the common stock will be entitled to receive - after payment or provision for payment of all debts and liabilities of Security Federal Corporation (including all deposits in the Bank and accrued interest thereon) and after distribution of the liquidation account established in the mutual to stock conversion of Security Federal Bank - all assets of Security Federal Corporation available for distribution, in cash or in kind. If preferred stock is outstanding, the holders thereof may have a priority over the holders of common stock in the event of liquidation or dissolution. 
No Preemptive Rights. Holders of the common stock are not entitled to preemptive rights with respect to any shares which may be issued.
Preferred Stock
Our articles of incorporation permit our Board of Directors to authorize the issuance of up to 200,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.01, in one or more series, without shareholder action.
§ 45.72 May I file a revised proposed alternative? ( a ) Within 20 days after issuance of the ALJ's decision under § 45.60, you may file with OEPC a revised proposed alternative condition or prescription if: ( 1 ) You previously filed a proposed alternative that met the requirements of § 45.71; and
( 2 ) Your revised proposed alternative is designed to respond to one or more findings of fact by the ALJ.
( b ) Your revised proposed alternative must: ( 1 ) Satisfy the content requirements for a proposed alternative under § 45.71(b); and
( 2 ) Identify the specific ALJ finding(s) to which the revised proposed alternative is designed to respond and how the revised proposed alternative differs from the original alternative.
( c ) Filing a revised proposed alternative will constitute a withdrawal of the previously filed proposed alternative.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00249**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 00249\00249_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00249\00249_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00249\00249_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00249\00249_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00249\00249_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00249\00249_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00249\00249_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00249\00249_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 00249\Certification Statement Plant ID 00249.PDF Plant certification statement x 

### 00249\Supplemental Documents\00249_Diagrams HA.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 00249\Supplemental Documents\00249_ICR HACoverPage.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00249\00249_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 00249\00249_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Michaels Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), for the period
ended May 3, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company
certifies that, to such officers 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
as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

|      |  |               |  |                                                                                                                    
|----- |  | ------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | June 12, 2003 |  | /s/ R. Michael RouleauR. Michael Rouleau
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)       
|     
|      |  |               |  | /s/ Jeffrey N. BoyerJeffrey N. Boyer
Executive Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Michaels Stores, Inc.
and will be retained by Michaels Stores, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Gibbons

Saitta J.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Rubio v. State, 124 Nev. 1032, 1039-40, 194 P.3d 1224, 1228-29 (2008). Here, the district court conducted a hearing on the motion and heard arguments from counsel; however, as the district court noted, Garcia "called no witnesses and submitted no affidavits." Garcia was not present at the hearing due to his apparent deportation and his former defense counsel was not called to testify. As a result, the district court determined that Garcia "failed to meet his burden of showing that his defense counsel was ineffective" and denied the motion. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, see Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986), and we

ORDER the judgnyeritAf the district court AFFIRMED.

cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge Ian E. Silverberg Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(,0) 1947A 2 littiftaf
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementson Form S-8 (Nos. 333-70532, 333-88766, 333-106003,333-114919, 333-121217 and 333-123392) of United Online, Inc.of our report dated February 28, 2007 relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthis Form 10-K.

| /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS  LLP |
|---------------------------------|
| Los Angeles, California         |
| March 1, 2007              |

 

----
§ 4.430 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) The administrative law judge may, in his discretion, on his own motion or motion of one of the parties or of the Bureau or Office direct the parties or their representatives to appear at a specified time and place for a prehearing conference to consider: ( 1 ) The possibility of obtaining stipulations, admissions of facts and agreements to the introduction of documents,
( 2 ) the limitation of the number of expert witnesses, and
( 3 ) any other matters which may aid in the disposition of the proceedings.
( b ) The administrative law judge shall issue an order which recites the action taken at the conference and the agreements made as to any of the matters considered, and which limits the issues for hearing to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements. Such order shall control the subsequent course of the proceeding before the administrative law judge unless modified for good cause, by subsequent order.
[36 FR 7186, Apr. 15, 1971, as amended at 75 FR 64668, Oct. 20, 2010]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos ALVIZO-CORPUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40851.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos Alvizo-Corpuz raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal *297offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1909

PATRICE KEPTCHUME TCHIENGANG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-194-215) Submitted: April 13, 2005 Decided: April 27, 2005 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua A. Moses, JOSHUA MOSES & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Senior Litigation Counsel, Shahira M. Tadross, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Patrice Keptchume Tchiengang, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. This court’s review of the denial of a motion to reopen is extremely deferential, and the decision will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion. Stewart v. INS , 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). Motions to reopen are disfavored. INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). We find no abuse of discretion in the immigration judge’s conclusion that Tchiengang failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting reopening. See8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(1) (2000). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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. PETITION DENIED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: John Laurie Bush, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 357

- CR

Trial court case number: 221956

Trial court: County Crim inal Court at Law No. 1 of Brazoria County

On April 30 , 201 9 , this case was abated and remanded to the trial court to determine whether appellant wished to prosecute the appeal and, if so, whether or not appellant should be appointed counsel. On May 15, 2019

, the trial court held a hearing on our abatement order but appellant failed to appear. The supplemental clerk’s record contains the trial court’s written findings of fact that ap pellant is not indigent, but he has not made the necessary arrangements for filing a brief.

Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket. The case will be

set for submission and considered without briefs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(4) (“If the trial court has found that the appellant . . . is not indigent but has not made the necessary arrangements for filing a brief, the appellate court may consider the appeal without briefs, as justice may require.”); see also Ayala v. State , No. 01

- 13

- 00393

- CR, 2015 WL 161788, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houst on [1st Dist.] Jan. 13, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ; Compian v. State , No. 01

- 08

- 00034

- CR, 2010 WL 3220644, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 12, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

.

It is so ORDE RED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Sherry Radack

_____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ June 6 , 2019

___