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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7176

JEFFREY D. WHITAKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES EDGAR DEMPS, Attorney & Counsel at law,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-03-819)

Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 29, 2004

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey D. Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey D. Whitaker seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), for failure to exhaust state remedies. An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a

district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural

grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the

petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the

denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th

Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 122 S.Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and

conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Whitaker

has not made the requisite showing. See Whitaker v. Demps, No. CA03-819 (E.D. Va. filed July 7, 2003 & entered July 9, 2003).

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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
1

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-062

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, April 16, 1997)

NRC RELEASES INSPECTION RESULTS

FOR SIERRA NUCLEAR DRY STORAGE CASK

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a report on its recent inspection of

Sierra Nuclear Corporation's facilities for fabrication of the VSC-24 dry cask storage

system for spent nuclear fuel. The inspection identified four items of nonconformance with

NRC requirements.

The NRC staff has scheduled a meeting with Sierra Nuclear and its customers May

6 in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss the inspection findings. The meeting, which is open to

the public, will begin at 9 a.m. in Room 1-F-7/9 of the NRC's One White Flint North

building at 11555 Rockville Pike.

The Sierra Nuclear cask system is currently used to store spent fuel at the Arkansas

Nuclear One nuclear power plant site near Russellville, Arkansas; the Palisades nuclear

power plant near South Haven, Michigan; and the Point Beach plant near Manitowoc,

Wisconsin.

The company holds an NRC certificate approving the use of the VSC-24. NRC

conducts inspections to determine whether the system is being manufactured in accordance

with the NRC-certified design.

The NRC performed the inspection March 17-21 to review cask seal-weld failures at

Palisades (in March 1995) and Arkansas (in November 1996), and to seek the cause of the

failures. Inspectors also assessed the adequacy of corrective actions taken after earlier

inspections.

A few days after this inspection, Entergy Operations, Inc., licensee for the Arkansas
2

facility, detected a weld crack in another VSC-24 cask. A separate NRC team conducted

an inspection there. It is still reviewing this issue at Arkansas and will issue an inspection

report soon.

Two items of nonconformance identified during the March 17-21 Sierra Nuclear

inspection raise safety concerns. NRC determined that Sierra Nuclear failed to examine

the root causes and potential generic aspects of the weld failures at Arkansas Nuclear and

Palisades. Inspectors also found that Sierra Nuclear failed to submit documentation to

change the time limit specified in the certificate of compliance to drain water out of a

loaded spent fuel cask. Two other, procedural nonconformances were also identified.

Sierra Nuclear’s lack of timely and comprehensive action, in dealing with these

important safety issues, is a significant regulatory concern. The inspection results do not

raise concerns about off-site public health and safety; however, they could result in future

fuel handling and retrievability problems. Sierra Nuclear must respond to the notice of

nonconformances within 30 days.

Copies of the inspection report are available for copying at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555. The report also will be

posted on the NRC home page at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Laura M. Bray, certify that:
1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Claimsnet.com inc.; 2)  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3)  Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other consolidatedfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects theconsolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4)  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for Claimsnet.com inc. and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure control and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5)  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s independentregistered public accounting firm and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 16, 2005
/s/ Laura M. Bray
Laura M. Bray
#### Mary Friedberg et al., Respondents, v. Hernon Santa Cruz et al., Appellants.

Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel,' Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 1072.]
### §1701. National Recording Registry of the Library of Congress

The Librarian of Congress shall establish the National Recording Registry for the purpose of maintaining and preserving sound recordings that are culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.

(Pub. L. 106–474, title I, §101, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2085.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 106–474, §1, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2085, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter and chapter 1524 of Title 36, Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations] may be cited as the 'National Recording Preservation Act of 2000'."
#### § 65.1 Purpose of part.

42 U.S.C. 4104 authorizes the Administrator to identify and publish information with respect to all areas within the United States having special flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and flood-related erosion hazards. The purpose of this part is to outline the steps a community needs to take in order to assist the Agency's effort in providing up-to-date identification and publication, in the form of the maps described in part 64, on special flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and flood-related erosion hazards.

[48 FR 28278, June 21, 1983]
#### § 115.40 Technical requirements for containers.

A container that is submitted for inspection for approval after manufacture, must comply with the requirements of Annex 7 of the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), November 14, 1975 (TIAS) and Annex 4 of the Customs Convention on Containers (Container Convention), December 2, 1972. Copies of Annex 7 and Annex 4 may be obtained from the Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service, Office of Field Operations, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229.

[T.D. 86-92, 51 FR 16161, May 1, 1986, as amended by T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13675, Mar. 22, 1999]
<PAGE>   1
                               BOCA RESEARCH, INC.

                   EXHIBIT 11 - CALCULATION OF SHARES USED IN
                        DETERMINING NET INCOME PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)


                                 MARCH 31, 1997


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                    MARCH 31, 1997



<S>                                                                    <C>      
Shares outstanding at January 1, 1997 ....................             8,678,883
Shares issued January 1, 1997 in
  connection with the 1992 Employee
  Stock Purchase Plan ....................................                12,178
Shares issued in connection with a
  non-qualified stock option plan ........................                17,908
                                                                       ---------
Weighted average shares
  outstanding ............................................             8,708,969
                                                                       =========
</TABLE>




                                 MARCH 31, 1996


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                    MARCH 31, 1996


<S>                                                                    <C>      
Shares outstanding at January 1, 1996 ....................             8,522,759
Shares issued January 1, 1996 in
  connection with the 1992 Employee
  Stock Purchase Plan ....................................                 9,502
Shares issued in connection with a
  non-qualified stock option plan ........................                 3,964
Weighted average of optioned shares
  using the treasury stock method ........................               465,429
                                                                       ---------
Weighted average shares
  outstanding ............................................             9,001,654
                                                                       =========
</TABLE>


                                     - 26 -
§ 307.15 Prudent management of Revolving Loan Funds. ( a ) *Accounting principles.* ( 1 ) RLFs shall operate in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) as in effect in the United States and the provisions outlined in the audit requirements set out as subpart F to 2 CFR part 200 and the Compliance Supplement, which is appendix XI to 2 CFR part 200, as applicable.
( 2 ) In accordance with GAAP, a loan loss reserve may be recorded in the RLF Recipient's financial statements to show the adjusted current value of an RLF's loan portfolio, provided this loan loss reserve is non-funded and is represented by a non-cash entry. However, loan loss reserves shall not be used to reduce the value of the RLF in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (“SEFA”) required as part of the RLF Recipient's audit requirements under 2 CFR part 200.
( b ) *Interest rates* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* An RLF Recipient may make loans to eligible borrowers at interest rates and under conditions determined by the RLF Recipient to be appropriate in achieving the goals of the RLF. The minimum interest rate an RLF Recipient may charge is four percentage points below the lesser of the current money center prime interest rate quoted in the *Wall Street Journal,* or the maximum interest rate allowed under State law. In no event shall the interest rate be less than the lower of four percent or 75 percent of the prime interest rate listed in the *Wall Street Journal.*
( 2 ) *Exception.* Should the prime interest rate listed in the *Wall Street Journal* exceed 14 percent, the minimum RLF interest rate is not required to be raised above 10 percent if doing so compromises the ability of the RLF Recipient to implement its financing strategy.
( c ) *RLF leveraging.* ( 1 ) RLF loans must leverage additional investment of at least two dollars for every one dollar of such RLF loans. This leveraging requirement applies to the RLF portfolio as a whole rather than to individual loans and is effective for the duration of the RLF's operation. To be classified as leveraged, additional investment must be made within 12 months of approval of an RLF loan, as part of the same business development project, and may include: ( i ) Capital invested by the borrower or others;
( ii ) Financing from private entities;
( iii ) The non-guaranteed portions and 90 percent of the guaranteed portions of any Federal loan; or
( iv ) Loans from other State and local lending programs.
( 2 ) Private investments shall not include accrued equity in a borrower's assets.
( d ) *RLF certification course.* EDA may establish a mandatory RLF certification program to enhance RLF Recipients' ability to administer RLF Grants in a prudent manner. If so required by EDA, the RLF Recipient must satisfactorily complete this program, and may consider the cost of attending the certification courses as an administrative cost, provided the requirements set forth in § 307.12 are satisfied.
[71 FR 56675, Sept. 27, 2006, as amended at 73 FR 62868, Oct. 22, 2008; 75 FR 4264, Jan. 27, 2010; 79 FR 76134, Dec. 19, 2014; 82 FR 57057, Dec. 1, 2017]
§ 131.430 Matching funds. ( a ) The recipient organization must provide matching funds equal to one-half of the Federal funding received for the first two years of its initial award (a statutory match ratio of 2:1 Federal to non-Federal funding). For the remainder of the time the recipient organization is in the WBC program, it must provide matching funds of one dollar for every dollar of its annual Federal award amount (a statutory match ratio of 1:1 Federal to non-Federal funding). At least 50 percent of the matching funds must be in cash (the sum of non-Federal cash and program income). The remaining 50 percent may be provided through allowable combinations of cash, in-kind contributions (third party), or authorized indirect costs.
( b ) Once the cash match and total match requirements have been met, any additional matching funds are considered overmatch. WBCs may provide overmatch if they choose to do so; however, if they have used Federal funds to raise match above the required amount, the funds must only be used to meet the Federal objective of the WBC program and must be verifiable from the non-Federal entity's records. All funds allocated to a WBC project through a budget proposal are subject to Federal rules and regulations, consistent with 2 CFR part 200. The funds must also be used solely for the WBC project. However, this does not prohibit WBC recipient organizations from raising funds separately and apart from the WBC program. Those funds that are not raised with WBC funds and are not used as match are not subject to the same recordkeeping requirements as they are not tied to the WBC program.
( c ) If the recipient organization indicates difficulty in meeting the match requirement, it can request a reduction of the Federal award. For specific guidance regarding the allowability, valuation, and documentation of match please see 2 CFR 200.306.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.3032 Corrected certification by U.S. exporters or producers.

Civil or administrative penalties provided for under 19 U.S.C. 1592 will not be imposed on an exporter or producer in the United States who promptly and voluntarily provides written notification pursuant to § 10.3009(b) with respect to the making of an incorrect certification.
### §796f–3. Centers operated by State agencies

A State that receives assistance for fiscal year 2015 with respect to a center in accordance with subsection (a) of this section (as in effect on the day before July 22, 2014) may continue to receive assistance under this subpart for fiscal year 2015 or a succeeding fiscal year if, for such fiscal year—

(1) no nonprofit private agency—

(A) submits an acceptable application to operate a center for independent living for the fiscal year before a date specified by the Administrator; and

(B) obtains approval of the application under section 796f–1 or 796f–2 of this title; or

(2) after funding all applications so submitted and approved, the Administrator determines that funds remain available to provide such assistance.

(Pub. L. 93–112, title VII, §724, as added Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §410, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1234; amended Pub. L. 113–128, title IV, §482(c), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1693.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 796f–3, Pub. L. 93–112, title VII, §724, as added Pub. L. 102–569, title VII, §701(2), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4461; amended Pub. L. 103–73, title I, §114(k), Aug. 11, 1993, 107 Stat. 731, related to centers operated by State agencies, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 105–220.

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–128, §482(c)(1), in introductory provisions, substituted "2015" for "1993" in two places and "July 22, 2014" for "August 7, 1998".

Pars. (1)(A), (2). Pub. L. 113–128, §482(c)(2), substituted "Administrator" for "Commissioner".
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO





SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of China Digital Communication Group (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Xu
Zhongnan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify 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:
      April 15, 2009
              
              /s/
      Xu ZhongnanXu
      ZhongnanChief
      Executive Officer
### §190h. Repealed. S. Res. 9, §2, Nov. 5, 1975

Section, Pub. L. 91–510, title II, §242(a), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1171, provided that each meeting conducted by Senate Committee on Appropriations be open to the public except when testimony to be taken might relate to a matter of national security, tend to reflect adversely on character or reputation of witness or other individual, or divulge matters deemed confidential under other provisions of law or regulations.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (“IICRC”) has filed written notifications                           ( print page 60897)                        simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization, and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification, Vancouver, WA. The nature and scope of IICRC's standards development activities are: to engage in a segment of the cleaning, restoration and inspection industry, primarily involving floor coverings, upholstery, personal property, water and fire damage restoration of structures and contents, and model remediation of structures and contents.

Dorothy B. Fountain

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-22894  Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 9269.3-2 Land resource management. [Reserved]
453 P.2d 597

#### STATE of New Mexico, ex rel. Wallace R. WEST, Petitioner, v. Paul F. LARRAZOLO, District Judge, Division 6, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, and Red Dow, Sheriff of Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Respondents.

No. 8837.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

May 6, 1969.

NOBLE, Chief Justice, and MOISE, COMPTON and TACKETT, Justices concurring.

Ordered that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be and the same is hereby denied.
#### Emma L. Hickinbottom, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Central Park North and East River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Ingraham, P. J., dissented.