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

**No. 12**  **- 8022** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CHRISTOPHER DAMON SPENCER, a/k/a Dog , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:11

- cr - 00030

- RBS

- FBS

- 1; 2:12

- cv - 00447

- RBS )

Submitted : February 26 , 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN , and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher Damon Spencer , Appellant Pro Se. Sherri e Scott Capotosto , Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Damon Spencer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a cer tificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on t he 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. Slack 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 that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a con stitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spencer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral arg ument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

N O . 09

- 19

- 00111

- CV

__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.S. AND C.L.S.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10

- 10

- 11820

- CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se appellant P.V.S. filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is

voluntarily made by appellant prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed notice of appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal.

APP EAL DISMISSED.

_________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice2 Submitted on July 24, 2019

Opinion Delivered July 25, 2019

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
Exhibit
      32







CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC REPORT


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Mathew
      G. Rule, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officers of Denali Concrete Management, Inc., (the “Company”), certify, pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that
      to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            the
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter
                ended
                September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) 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 78 o(d)); 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:
      November 10, 2008





/s/Mathew
      G.
      Rule


Mathew
      G.
      Rule


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


Treasurer
      and Chief Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act has been furnished to Denali Concrete Management, Inc. and will be retained
      by Denali Concrete Management, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 970.303 Procedures for new entrants. ( a ) *Filing of new entrant applications or amendments; priority of right.* New entrant applications or amendments must be filed in accordance with § 970.200. A new entrant may file an application or amendment only at or after 1500 hours G.m.t. (11:00 a.m. EDT) January 3, 1983. All applications or amendments filed at that time shall be deemed to be filed simultaneously, and, if in accordance with § 970.209, shall have priority of right over any application or amendment filed subsequently. Priority of right for any application or amendment filed after that time will be established as described in § 970.209.
( b ) *Conflicts.* ( 1 ) If a domestic conflict exists between or among new entrant applications or amendments, the applicants involved in the conflict shall resolve it.
( 2 ) If an international conflict exists between or among new entrant applications or amendments, the conflict shall be resolved in accordance with applicable conflict resolution procedures agreed to between the United States and its reciprocating States pursuant to section 118 of the Act. The Administrator will provide each domestic applicant involved in an international conflict a copy of any such procedures in force when the Administrator issues notice to the applicant that an international conflict exists. Each applicant whose application is involved in an international conflict shall be responsible for actions required in the conduct of the conflict resolution procedures, including bearing a proportional cost of implementing the procedures, representing himself in any proceedings, and assisting in the selection of arbitrators if necessary.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-20603

Mark Douglas Adams, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Keri Blakinger, Editor Houston Chronicle Newspaper; John 

Bridges, Editor Austin Newspaper; Louie Gohmert, U.S. 

Representative, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CV-1843

Before Southwick, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Mark Douglas Adams, Texas prisoner # 1509320, seeks leave to 

appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Adams fails 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-20603 Document: 00516257975 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
No. 20-20603

2

to make any relevant or coherent response to the district court’s order. He 

thus identifies no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See McGarrah v. Alford, 783 

F.3d 584, 584 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED,

and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See id.; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal and this dismissal count as strikes under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537-38 (2015). 

In addition, while this appeal was pending, another district court imposed a 

strike. Adams v. Lumpkin, No. 4:21-CV-1088, 2022 WL 425978, at *6 (S.D. 

Tex. Feb. 10, 2022). Adams now has three strikes. See Coleman, 575 U.S. at 

537. Adams is now BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action or 

appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained unless he is under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g); see McGarrah, 783 F.3d at 585.

IFP DENIED; appeal DISMISSED; § 1915(g) bar IMPOSED. 

Case: 20-20603 Document: 00516257975 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of DirectorsAvistar Communications Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-115755, 333-43944 and 333-63914)on Form S-8 of Avistar Communications Corporation of our reportdated March 19, 2007 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets ofAvistar Communications Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31,2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the two years in theperiod ended December 31, 2006, and the related financial statementschedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Avistar Communications Corporation.
|                       | /s/ BURR, PILGER &  MAYER LLP |
|-----------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Palo Alto, California |                                   |
| March 19, 2007   |                                   |

 

----
No: 13-045 June 3, 2013

CONTACT: Maureen Conley, 301-415-8200 

NRC Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Revisions 

to Policy Statements on Agreement State Programs

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on proposed revisions to 

two policy statements about the agency’s Agreement State programs. Published in today’s 

Federal Register, the changes would incorporate language about security of radioactive materials, and 

other current NRC policies and practices that are not addressed in the existing policy statements.

Agreement States—of which there are 37—license and regulate the use of radioactive 

materials in industry, medicine and academics under an agreement with the NRC. Agreement State 

radioactive materials programs must be adequate to protect public health and safety, and have 

regulations that are compatible with the NRC’s. 

The NRC staff worked with the Agreement States to revise two policy statements: “Policy 

Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” and the “Statements of 

Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program.” Both were originally issued in 1997. Since the 

terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the NRC and Agreement States have implemented new security 

requirements for radioactive materials under their mandate to protect public health and safety. The 

revisions attempt to demonstrate a clear connection between public health and safety and security.

The public may submit comments on the proposed changes until August 19. The policy 

statements are available on the federal rulemaking website at http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket ID NRC-2013-0081.

Comments may be submitted directly on that website; by email to Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov;

by fax to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 301-415-1101; or by mail to Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6856

OSBALDO LEMUS BERRIOS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DINO E. FLORES, Esq.; SCHAFFER, BLACK & FLORES, P.C.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:20-cv-03198-TDC)

Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Osbaldo Lemus Berrios, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Osbaldo Lemus Berrios appeals the district court’s order dismissing Berrios’ civil 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Berrios v. Flores, 

No. 8:20-cv-03198-TDC (D. Md. May 6, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 1.81 Authority and incorporation of CEQ Regulations.

This subpart is issued pursuant to 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.*). Pursuant to Executive Order 11514 (March 5, 1970, as amended by Executive Order 11991, May 24, 1977) and the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 *et seq.*) the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has issued comprehensive regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) (“CEQ Regulations”). Although it is the Commission's position that these regulations are not binding on it, the Commission's policy is to comply fully with the CEQ Regulations unless it determines in a particular instance or for a category of actions that compliance would not be consistent with the requirements of law. With this caveat, the Commission incorporates into this subpart the CEQ Regulations. The following are supplementary definitions and procedures to be applied in conjunction with the CEQ Regulations.

[47 FR 3096, Jan. 22, 1982, as amended at 50 FR 53304, Dec. 31, 1985]
### §1325. Annual report

Not later than December 31 of each year, the Chairperson of the Council shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a report on the activities of the Council during the preceding 12-month period.

(Added Pub. L. 115–390, title II, §202(a), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5184.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Dec. 21, 2018, and applicable to contracts that are awarded before, on, or after that date, see section 202(c) of Pub. L. 115–390, set out as a note under section 1321 of this title.

Title II of Pub. L. 115–390 effective 90 days after Dec. 21, 2018, see section 205 of Pub. L. 115–390, set out as a note under section 1321 of this title.
§ 842.704 Election requirements. ( a ) The election of an alternative form of annuity and evidence of spousal consent must be filed on a form prescribed by OPM within the time limit prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The form will require that a notary public or other official authorized to administer oaths certify that the current spouse presented identification, gave consent to the specific election as executed by the retiree, signed or marked the form, and acknowledged that the consent was given freely in the notary's or official's presence.
( b ) An election of the alternative form of annuity must be in writing and received by OPM on or before the date of final adjudication. After the date of final adjudication, an election of the alternative form of annuity is irrevocable.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (d), an annuitant who dies before the time limit prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section is deemed to have made an affirmative election under § 842.703(a) with a reduced annuity to provide a current spouse annuity, regardless of any election completed under § 842.606, and the lump-sum credit will be paid in accordance with the order of precedence described in section 8424 of title 5, United States Code.
( d ) If an annuitant described in paragraph (c) has completed an election under § 842.604 (a) or (b)— ( 1 ) The lump-sum credit will be paid in accordance with the order of precedence described in section 8424 of title 5, United States Code; and
( 2 ) The election under § 842.604 (a) or (b) will be honored.
[53 FR 11635, Apr. 8, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 6552, Feb. 19, 1991; 60 FR 54587, Oct. 25, 1995]
**Exhibit 23.2–Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-52516, 333-97102, 333-818836, 333-69284, 333-66258, 333-136209 and 333-114262; Form S-3 Nos.333-87082 and 333-83820), as amended, and in the related Prospectuses of Stratos International,Inc. of our report dated June 16, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsStratos International, Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2005 included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2007.              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         Chicago, Illinois
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 amended annual report of Tranquility, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report"), I, Dominick Pope, 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 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/Dominick PopeDominick Pope, Chief Executive Officer Date: August 12, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25861]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Southwest Research Institute: The Consortium 
for NASGRO Development and Support

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 18, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the nat8ional Cooperative Research and Production Act 
of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research 
Institute: The Consortium for NASGRO Development and Support has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in the membership and 
project status of the venture. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the period of performance has been extended to May 31, 
2007. Additionally, Honeywell International, Inc., Phoenix, AZ, has 
been added as a party to this venture; and Agusta s.p.a., Costina Costa 
de Samarate, Italy; Korea Aerospace Industries, Ltd., Kyungnam, Korea; 
and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, Ltd., Nagoya, Japan are no longer active 
participants.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Southwest Research Institute: The 
Consortium for NASGRO Development and Support intends to file 
additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On October 3, 2001, Southwest Research Institute: the Consortium 
for NASGRO Development and Support filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on January 22, 2002 (67 FR 2910).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 7, 
2003. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on September 8, 2003 (68 FR 52959).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25861 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### Part M—National Program of Cancer Registries
SMALL BUSINESS IN RUSSIA

----

OCTOBER 1998
AUTHOR:                  MICHAEL NIKOULICHEV
INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT, U.S. & FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SERVICE ANDU.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 1998.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OUTSIDE OFTHE UNITED STATES
Summary
§ 1025.57 Effective date of order. ( a ) *Orders in proceedings arising under the Consumer Product Safety Act.* An order of the Commission in proceedings arising under the Consumer Product Safety Act becomes effective upon receipt, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
( b ) *Orders in proceedings arising under the Flammable Fabrics Act* — ( 1 ) *Consent orders.* An order in proceedings arising under the Flammable Fabrics Act, which has been issued following the Commission's acceptance of an offer of settlement in accordance with § 1025.26 of these rules, becomes effective upon receipt of notice of Commission acceptance, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
( 2 ) *Litigated orders.* All other orders in proceedings arising under the Flammable Fabrics Act become effective upon the expiration of the statutory period for court review specified in Section 5(c) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, title 15, United States Code, section 45(c), or, if a petition for review has been filed, upon a court's affirmance of the Commission's order.
( c ) *Consequences of failure to comply with effective order.* A respondent against whom an order has been issued who is not in compliance with such order on or after the date the order becomes effective is in violation of such order and is subject to an immediate action for the civil or criminal penalties provided for in the applicable statute.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Sonia Berman, Respondent, against James Barone, Doing Business as Murray’s Inn et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Present — Foster, P. J., Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ.
#### Josephine M. Fairchild, Appellant, v. Scarsdale Estates, Respondent. White Plains Development Company and Guardian Trust Company, as Trustee, Appellants, and Others, Defendants.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Jenks, P. J.,' Burr, Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ.
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with S8

QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F7

Date: December 17, 2008

R

I.

eVlSlon

1

Record of Contacts

FDMS Docket No. FAA- 2.t IC,- I I '5 tj

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organ..ization Person Contacted Date [

Boeing Safety SIIcl1y Benda Various (5109, 6109,

8/09, 11/09)

Boeing unco Debra Dean 8/09 I

Boeing UDCO Chris Dnvis 7/9/09

Boeing Hermon Fray 8/09 I

ATA Joe White 11/09 I

UNCONTROLLED COpy WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master List 10 Verify That This is the Correct Revision Before Use