alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6927** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ROGER D. BURRESS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of West Virginia , at Charleston
. John T. Copenhaver, Jr. , District Judge. ( 2:03

- cr - 00024

- 1; 2:10

- cv - 00034 )

Submitted : September 30, 2010 Decided: November 3, 2010

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un publishe d per curiam opinion
. Michael Joseph Curtis, Ashland, Kentucky ; Sebastian M. Joy, CAUMMISAR LAW OFFICE, Grayson, Kentucky , for Appellant. Joshua Clarke Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opin ions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roger D. Burress seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (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 standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. S lack 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 th at the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burress has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appe alability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### § 123.108 How do the SBA disaster loan program and the FEMA grant programs interact?

After a Presidential disaster declaration is made, you may be eligible for disaster assistance, including grant assistance, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Program (IHP). After you register with FEMA for disaster assistance, FEMA will consider you for IHP assistance, which includes housing assistance grants to repair or replace your damaged primary residence and temporary housing assistance (including rental assistance) to assist you temporarily with a place to live, and assistance with personal property, medical, dental and funeral expenses. FEMA may also refer you to SBA to apply for loan assistance to help repair or rebuild your home and/or to replace personal property destroyed during the disaster. If SBA is unable to approve your loan application, or if you have damage in excess of the SBA loan amount, SBA may refer you, on a timely basis, to FEMA for IHP grant consideration to assist with your unmet personal property and transportation needs. If you are approved for the SBA disaster loan and you have received grant assistance that duplicates the damage covered by the SBA loan, such grant assistance must be deducted from your loan eligibility as described in section 123.101(c) of the regulations. All grant decisions are made by FEMA. Additionally, if additional disaster assistance is available from state, local or other agencies, SBA may refer you to the appropriate agency for consideration.

[75 FR 7546, Feb. 22, 2010]
May 12-13 2023 

REUNION Anthony Francisco Sanchez, Esquire 

1229 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 186-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

            In connection with the accompanying Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
of Magna-Lab, Inc. for the quarter ended May 31, 2005, the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

            (3)   such Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May
                  31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                  or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (4)   the information contained in such Quarterly report on Form
                  10-QSB for the quarter ended May 31, 2005 fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Magna-Lab, Inc.


      July 15, 2005   /s/ Kenneth C. Riscica
                      ----------------------------------------------------------
                      Name: Kenneth C. Riscica
                      Title: Treasurer & Secretary (principal financial officer)
#### § 142.26 Can a party informally discuss the case with the ALJ?

No. Such discussions are forbidden as *ex parte* communications with the ALJ as set forth in § 134.220 of this chapter. This does not prohibit a party from communicating with other employees of OHA to inquire about the status of a case or to ask routine questions concerning administrative functions and procedures.
ARTHUR COLLIN CHERRY,

Appellant,

v.

KATHERINE HIETT VIKER,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-689

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Robert Wheeler, Judge.

M. Stephen Stanfield, Gainesville, for Appellant.

Emilian “Ian” Bucataru, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal of a non-final order awarding temporary attorney’s fees and 

suit money to Appellee in a child support and custody case, Appellant contends 

that the trial court’s order is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. We 

agree to the extent that the trial court’s findings regarding the parties’ financial 
2

resources are not supported by the evidence because only argument of counsel –

and no evidence – was presented at the hearing below. Thus, the court could not 

have properly determined the need of the party seeking fees or the ability of the 

other party to pay. See Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So. 3d 280, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2012) (“An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 61.16 must be based on the 

need of the party seeking the fees and the ability of the other party to pay the 

fees.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing. See Baker v. 

Baker, 35 So. 3d 76, 77-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding an 

award of temporary fees where party seeking fee award failed to produce evidence 

to support the award because “a temporary award does not create vested rights”).

By this disposition, we expressly decline to reach the issue of whether the record 

supports the amounts of suit money and attorney’s fees awarded by the trial court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6219

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus DAYMIONE DESOUZA, a/k/a Fata, a/k/a Demione DeSouza, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-53-H, CA-96-162-4-H) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: October 22, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daymione DeSouza, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Daymione DeSouza appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). DeSouza challenges the validity of his conviction, entered pursuant to his guilty plea, of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (1994). DeSouza contends that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137 (1995), interpreting the meaning of “use” under § 924(c), the requisite factual basis for his plea was lacking and his plea was involuntary. We reject DeSouza’s contention that the record demonstrates that he did not “use” or “carry” a firearm within the meaning of § 924(c)(1) as that statute was interpreted by Bailey. DeSouza is liable for the acts of his co-conspirators which constitute use or carry under § 924(c). See United States v. Wilson , 135 F.3d 291, 305-06 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Phan , 121 F.3d 149, 152 n.2 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 3388 (U.S. Feb. 23, 1998) (No. 97-863). Accordingly, we deny DeSouza’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1**





Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A Amendment 1 of M45 Mining
      Resources Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Andrea M. Cortellazzi, 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 results of operations of the
                Company.





Date:
                June 27, 2008
            /s/Andrea
                M. CortellazziAndrea
                M. CortellazziChief
                Executive Officer
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to this park navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to this park information section
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace
National Historic SiteNew York
Editorial Note on Part 121
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 121.304 What are the size requirements for refinancing an existing SBA loan? ( a ) A concern that applies to refinance an existing SBA loan or guarantee will be considered small for the refinancing even though its size has increased since the date of the original financing to exceed its applicable size standard, provided that: ( 1 ) The increase in size is due to natural growth (as distinguished from merger, acquisition or similar management action); and
( 2 ) SBA determines that refinancing is necessary to protect the Government's financial interest.
( b ) If a concern's size has increased other than by natural growth, the concern and its affiliates must be small at the time the application for refinancing is accepted for processing by SBA.
\



## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,764-01

EX P ARTE DEMETRIUS B EASON, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W16-52471-M (A) IN THE 194T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of burg lary of a habitation and sentenc ed to 10 y ea r s ’ im p r is o n ment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk f

orwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that his rig ht to due proce ss was violated whe n he was denied consideration for shock probation throug h no fault of his own. Specifica lly , Applicant states that his hear ing on the 178 day from the date of the execution of his sentenc e wa s postponed, and he was t h not returne d to the trial court until the 181 day , when the trial court no longe r had jurisdiction. T E X . st C O D E C R I M . P R O C . Art. 42A.202. The State ag ree s that Applicant is entitled to relief.2

Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Howeve r, the trial court has not enter ed finding s and conclusions. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . Art. 11.07, § 3(c) , (d). Ad ditionally , the parties ref er to a docket sheet that is not part of the rec ord befor e t h i s C o u rt

. Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I t appea rs that Applicant is repr esente d by counsel. I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is still repr es en t ed b y

co u n s el

. I f Applicant is not repr esente d by counsel, is indige nt, and wants to be repr esente d b y counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . ar t

. 2 6 .04. I f counsel is appointed or reta ined, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’ s name. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions o f l aw as to whether Applicant is elig ible for shock probation, and whether his rig ht to due proce ss was violated when he was denied consideration for shock probation. The trial court may make any other finding s and conclusions that it deems appropr iate in re sponse to Applicant’s c laim. The trial cour t s hall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, af fidavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.3

Filed: Oc tober 19, 2022 Do not publish
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.1002 Who may file a VOSB or SDVOSB status protest? ( a ) For sole source procurements, SBA, VA, or the contracting officer may protest the proposed awardee's VOSB or SDVOSB status.
( b ) For all other procurements, any interested party may protest the apparent successful offeror's VOSB or SDVOSB status. An interested party means the contracting officer, SBA, VA, any concern that submits an offer for a specific set-aside VOSB or SDVOSB contract (including Multiple Award Contracts) or order, or any concern that submitted an offer in full and open competition and its opportunity for award will be affected by a reserve of an award given to a VOSB or SDVOSB.
( c ) SBA and VA may file a VOSB or SDVOSB status protest at any time.
§ 147.605 Award. *Award* means an award of financial assistance by the SBA or other Federal agency directly to a recipient. ( a ) The term award includes: ( 1 ) A Federal grant or cooperative agreement, in the form of money or property in lieu of money.
( 2 ) A block grant or a grant in an entitlement program, whether or not the grant is exempted from coverage under the Governmentwide rule 13 CFR Part 147 that implements OMB Circular A-102 (for availability, see 5 CFR 1310.3) and specifies uniform administrative requirements.
( b ) The term award does not include: ( 1 ) Technical assistance that provides services instead of money.
( 2 ) Loans.
( 3 ) Loan guarantees.
( 4 ) Interest subsidies.
( 5 ) Insurance.
( 6 ) Direct appropriations.
( 7 ) Veterans' benefits to individuals (*i.e.,* any benefit to veterans, their families, or survivors by virtue of the service of a veteran in the Armed Forces of the United States).
No: 23-046 July 27, 2023 

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Issues License to Rare Element Resources Inc.

for Rare Earth Extraction Pilot Project in Wyoming 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a license to Rare Element Resources Inc. 

for a proposed pilot project in Wyoming to demonstrate a proprietary process to extract rare 

earth elements from ore.

Rare earth elements are essential in many applications, including electric automobiles, 

smart phones, advanced wind turbines, computer hard drives, magnets, and military systems. 

RER’s Upton Pilot Project, sponsored in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, involves 

a mined pile of about 1,000 tons of ore to be transported from the Black Hills National Forest in 

northeastern Wyoming to a rare earth element processing plant in Upton, Wyoming. Extracting 

the rare earth elements from the ore will produce waste streams including thorium and some 

uranium, requiring a source material license from the NRC. 

Under the NRC license, RER will treat and stabilize the process wastes before sending 

them to a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.

The NRC’s review of the license application included a technical safety review and an 

environmental assessment. The agency published a notice of opportunity in May to request a 

hearing. No petitions were filed.

RER intends to start processing the ore pile in April 2024. The project is expected to take 

a year, followed by two years to decommission. The license is valid through April 30, 2027.
### §480. Training programs

The Director of the Federal Judicial Center and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall develop and conduct comprehensive education and training programs to ensure that all judicial officers, clerks of court, courtroom deputies, and other appropriate court personnel are thoroughly familiar with the most recent available information and analyses about litigation management and other techniques for reducing cost and expediting the resolution of civil litigation. The curriculum of such training programs shall be periodically revised to reflect such information and analyses.

(Added Pub. L. 101–650, title I, §103(a), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5095.)
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
 
 In
          connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Celsia Technologies,
          Inc.
          (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
          Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jorge
          Fernandez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
          18
          U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
          that to the best of my 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/
          Jorge Fernandez
 Jorge
          Fernandez
 Chief
          Financial Officer
 July
          30,
          2008
§ 18.100 Conditions on use of funds. ( a ) No appropriated funds may be expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any of the following covered Federal actions: the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a certification, set forth in appendix A, that the person has not made, and will not make, any payment prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or a cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a disclosure form, set forth in appendix B, if such person has made or has agreed to make any payment using nonappropriated funds (to include profits from any covered Federal action), which would be prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section if paid for with appropriated funds.
( d ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan shall file with that agency a statement, set forth in appendix A, whether that person has made or has agreed to make any payment to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.
( e ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan shall file with that agency a disclosure form, set forth in appendix B, if that person has made or has agreed to make any payment to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.
#### State of Connecticut v. Gary Burrows

Julia DiCocco Dewey, assistant state's attorney, in support of the petition.

Decided April 8, 1986

The state's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court. 5 Conn. Ann. 556. is denied.