alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6456

EDUARDO AMBARIO BARRERA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-05-97-5) Submitted: August 26, 2005 Decided: September 8, 2005 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eduardo Ambario Barrera, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Harper Graham, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Eduardo Barrera seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that even if the district court committed a procedural error in dismissing the appeal without giving Barrera an opportunity to address the potential applicability of equitable tolling, seeHill v. Braxton , 277 F.3d 701, 706-07 (4th Cir. 2002), Barrera has not made the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Murphy v. Netherland , 116 F.3d 97, 100 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are- 3 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

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 of Sunburst Acquisitions IV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
period ending February 29, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Terry Fields, President 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Terry Fields



 Terry Fields,

 President

June 14, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
March 31, 2004, of Synagro Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Paul
Withrow, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company and that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                                 /s/ J. Paul Withrow
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 J. Paul Withrow

                                                 March 21, 2005
Exhibit
32.1





Ener1,
Inc.


1540
Broadway, Suite 25C


New York,
New York 10036





January
15, 2010





Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, NE


Washington,
DC 20549





Re:
Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350





Dear
Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 1
of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, I, Charles Gassenheimer, Chief Executive Officer of
Ener1, Inc., 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)
            such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 1 of Ener1, Inc., for the
      quarter ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
      78m or 78o(d)); and





2)
            the
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment
      No. 1 of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Ener1, Inc.





/s/
      Charles GassenheimerCharles
      Gassenheimer
                    Chief
      Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
                    (Principal
      Executive Officer and
                    Duly
      Authorized
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Ener1, Inc. and will be
retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.





This
certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.1 to Ener1, Inc.’s
quarterly report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject
to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a
filing.
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. 99-44 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 4, 1999

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on

Reactor Safeguards has scheduled meetings of two of its

subcommittees in Rockville, Maryland. The thermal-hydraulic

subcommittee will meet on March 23, followed by a meeting of the

materials and metallurgy subcommittee March 24-25.

At the thermal-hydraulic subcommittee meeting, members will

discuss the Electric Power Research Institute RETRAN-3D thermalhydraulic transient computer code.

The subcommittee on materials and metallurgy will discuss

industry and NRC activities related to steam generator tube

integrity; the boiling water reactor vessel internals project;

the pressurized water reactor materials reliability project, and

reactor pressure vessel integrity. It also will discuss the

status of resolution of the differences between the NRC staff and

the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) regarding the

use of 1994 addenda to the ASME Section III Code for class 1, 2,

and 3 piping systems, as well as the proposed revision to the

section entitled, “Codes and Standards” in the NRC regulations

(Part 50.55a, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations).

The meetings will be held in Room T-2B1 of the agency’s Two

White Flint North building at 11545 Rockville Pike. Each meeting

will begin at 8:30 a.m. and last until the conclusion of business

the first two days, and until noon the last day.

Other aspects of the meetings, including opportunities for

comment, will be described in a forthcoming edition of the

Federal Register.

###
|EXHIBIT 12
|----------

|PRIME MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                      FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 AND 2002
                                                           (Unaudited)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                                                             | Nine Months Ended September 30,
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------
|
|Income (loss) before provision for income taxes and after minority interests |                                
|Undistributed equity income                                                  |                                
|Minority interest income of subsidiaries with fixed charges                  |                                
|                                                                             |                                
|Adjusted earnings                                                            |                                
|                                                                             |                                
|Interest on debt                                                             |                                
|Loan fees                                                                    |                                
|                                                                             |                                
|Total fixed charges                                                          |                                
|                                                                             |                                
|Total available earnings before fixed charges                                |                                
|                                                                             |                                
|Ratio                                                                        |                                
|                                                                             |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 CASE NO.: 20-CV-81205-RAR 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

 INC. d/b/a/ PAR FUNDING, et al., 

____________________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission hereby seeks an Order striking the 

Commission’s initial Reply [ECF No. 1339], which is not the correct file. The Commission filed 

an Amended Reply on August 4, 2022, and seeks a one-day enlargement of time so that the 

Amended Reply (DE 1341) is deemed timely filed. 

Accordingly, the Commission respectfully seeks an Order striking from the record Docket 

Entry 1339 and directing the Clerk of Court to Strike Docket Entry 1339 and deem the Amended 

Reply DE 1341 timely filed. 

Counsel for Defendants Michael Furman, Joseph LaForte, Lisa McElhone, and Joseph 

Cole Barleta do not oppose the relief sought in this Motion.  

August 17, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: Amie Riggle Berlin 

 Amie Riggle Berlin 

 Senior Trial Counsel 

 Florida Bar No. 630020 

 Direct Dial: (305) 982-6322 

 Email: berlina@sec.gov

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1361 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

 COMMISSION 

 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950 

 Miami, Florida 33131 

 Telephone: (305) 982-6300 

 Facsimile: (305) 536-4154 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL 

Undersigned conferred with defense counsel for all defendants at issue in the Motion for 

Final Judgments and Omnibus Reply in support thereof - namely, counsel for Furman, LaForte, 

McElhone, and Cole Barleta - who advised that they do not oppose the relief sought in this motion.  

Amie Riggle Berlin 

Amie Riggle Berlin 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 17th day 

of August 2022 via CM-ECF on all defense counsel in this case. 

 Amie Riggle Berlin 

 Amie Riggle Berlin 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1361 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2022 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.905 Importer obligations. ( a ) *General.* An importer who makes a claim for preferential tariff treatment under § 10.903(b) of this subpart: ( 1 ) Will be deemed to have certified that the good is eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA;
( 2 ) Is responsible for the truthfulness of the claim and of all the information and data contained in the certification provided for in § 10.904 of this subpart;
( 3 ) Is responsible for submitting any supporting documents requested by CBP, and for the truthfulness of the information contained in those documents. When a certification prepared by an exporter or producer forms the basis of a claim for preferential tariff treatment, and CBP requests the submission of supporting documents, the importer will provide to CBP, or arrange for the direct submission by the exporter or producer of, all information relied on by the exporter or producer in preparing the certification.
( b ) *Information provided by exporter or producer.* The fact that the importer has made a claim or submitted a certification based on information provided by an exporter or producer will not relieve the importer of the responsibility referred to in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Exemption from penalties.* An importer will not be subject to civil or administrative penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592 for making an incorrect claim for preferential tariff treatment or submitting an incorrect certification, provided that the importer promptly and voluntarily corrects the claim or certification and pays any duty owing (*see* §§ 10.931 and 10.933 of this subpart).
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle, IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. III-01-047 October 23, 2001

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $3,000 FINE AGAINST

 THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA FOR VIOLATING REGULATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $3,000 fine against the University of

Missouri-Columbia in Columbia, Missouri, for violating NRC regulations associated with employee

protection requirements.

An NRC investigation found that a former research scientist at the University of Missouri

Research Reactor (MURR) was given an oral warning after he talked to a Department of Energy

official about the level of commercial activity done at the universityís research reactor. The scientist

was told that he was ìnot authorized to discuss MURR management, priorities, etc. with any

government (state or federal) officials.î The NRC staff found that this statement would prohibit,

restrict and discourage the scientist from raising safety concerns.

ìThis violation is of concern to the NRC because of a similar violation which was identified by

the NRC in 1994...involving discrimination against employees for raising safety issues at MURR,î said

David B. Matthews, Director of the NRCís Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs. ìThe

NRC is concerned that lasting corrective actions be implemented to ensure that safety questions are

freely raised and addressed at MURR.î

As a result of a second NRC investigation, the NRC staff concluded that MURR management

had created a potential chilling effect on employees reporting safety concerns. The NRC earlier this

year required the university to assess the freedom university employees have to report problems

without fear of retaliation, and to assess its corrective actions program.

In issuing the $3,000 fine, the NRC staff noted that the university had taken a number of

additional corrective actions including establishing an ombudsman program to receive safety concerns.

The university has until November 21, 2001, to pay the fine or protest it. If the fine is protested

and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the university may request a hearing.

# # #
### §92b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 92b was editorially reclassified as section 5324 of this title.
### §69b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 69b was editorially reclassified as section 6578 of this title.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 18, 2014

t0611

Order 

Clerk

June 18, 2014

148446

MICHAEL WENNERS, DAVID CROSS and

SALLY CROSS,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 148446

COA: 314938 

Washtenaw CC: 12-001197-CH

MATTHEW D. CHISOLM and AMY (VOGEL)

CHISOLM,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and

CLAUDIA M. WEBB and MARY J. POIRER,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. The Court of Appeals shall consider the defendant’s 

motion for summary disposition in light of MCR 2.605.
CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 of Global Industries, Ltd. ("Global") on Form10-Q for the quarter ending
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
August 6, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
SS 1350 as adopted pursuant to SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge based upon a review of the Report, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Global as of the dates and for periods presented as required by such Report.





/S/ WILLIAM J. DORE'William J. Dore'Chief Executive OfficerAugust 6, 2004


This certification is provided pursuant to SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Global or the certifying officer for purposes of
SS 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by SS 906 has been provided to Global  and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-03-0079 - NRC Review of Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Draft Incidental Waste (Waste-Incidental-To-Reprocessing) Determination for Tank Farm Facility Closure

Accession Number: ML012250219

Date Released: Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML030920704 - SECY-03-0079 - NRC Review of Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Draft Incidental Waste (Waste Incidental to Reprocessing) Determination for Tank Farm Facility Closure (8 page(s), 5/15/2003)
    - ML030930109 - SECY-03-0079-Attachment 1 - Joel T. Case Ltr re:  NRC Review of Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Draft aste-Incidental-To-Reprocessing Determination for Tank Farm Facility Residuals - Conclusions and Recommendations (4 page(s), 5/15/2003)
    - ML030930424 - SECY-03-0079-Attachment 2 - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review of Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Draft Waste-Incidental-to-Reprocessing Determination for Tank Farm Facility Residuals (42 page(s), 5/15/2003)
    - ML030620631 - SECY-03-0079-Figure 1: INEEL Site Map (1 page(s), 5/15/2003)
    - ML021430180 - SECY-02-0112-FIGURE 2.  Plan view of Tank Farm. (1 page(s), 6/21/2002)
    - ML030620640 - SECY-03-0079-Figure 3: Typical tank and vault layout and dimensions at the INTEC TFF (1 page(s), 5/15/2003)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer