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

**No. 12**  **- 4432** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,
v. KAWASI DINGLE , Defendant

- Appell ant
. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. R . Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:11

- cr - 00536

- RBH

- 1 )

Submitted : November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kathy Price Elmore, ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished op inions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Kawasi Dingle pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal to 180 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Dingle challenges the district court’s determinati on that his prior South Carolina convictions for second degree burglary, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 16

- 11

- 312(A) (2003), were properly qualifying predicate felonies under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006). Because Dingle’s argument is foreclosed by our previous decision in United States v. Wright , 594 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2010), we affirm.
In Wright , we held that a violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 16

- 11

- 312(A) categorically qualifies as a predicate offense for purpose s of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because the statute tracks the generic definition of burglary promulgated by the United States Supreme Court. Wright , 594 F.3d at 266
. Because one panel of this court may not overrule another, we conclude that Dingle was properly sentenced and affirm the district court’s judgment. United States v. Rivers , 595 F.3 d 558, 564 n.3 (4th Cir. 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argu ment would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 23, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ Nos. 3D21-1586, 3D21-1848 & 3D21-1849 Lower Tribunal No. 21-2773

________________ 

### Maurice Symonette , Appellant,

vs. 

### JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ,

Appellee.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge. Maurice Symonette, in proper person. Gray│Robinson, P.A., and Kristie L. Hatcher-Bolin (Lakeland), Roland E. Schwartz and Sophie M. Labarge (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 48.23(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (providing that, subject to2

exceptions inapplicable herein, recording of notice of lis pendens “constitutes a bar to the enforcement against the property described in the notice of all interests . . . unrecorded at the time of recording the notice unless the holder of any such unrecorded interest . . . moves to intervene in such proceedings within 30 days after the recording of the notice and the court ultimately grants the motion”); Provident Funding Assocs., L.P. v. MDTR, 257 So. 3d 1114, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“The doctrine of res judicata provides that a judgment on the merits in an earlier suit bars a later suit on the same cause of action between the same parties or others in privity with those parties.”); Pearce v. Sandler, 219 So. 3d 961, 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“[T]he doctrine of res judicata not only bars issues that were raised, but it also precludes consideration of issues that could have been raised but were not raised in the first case.”); Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Badra, 991 So. 2d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“Collateral estoppel precludes re-litigating an issue where the same issue has been fully litigated by the same parties or their privies, and a final decision has been rendered by a court.”); Kelly v. Snietka, 155 So. 3d 1278, 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (explaining that court has jurisdiction to review order on motion to disqualify trial judge on appeal from final judgment if motion was filed prior to final judgment citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h)); Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin.3

2.330(c)(3) (requiring that motion to disqualify “be sworn to or affirmed by the party by signing the motion or by attaching a separate affidavit”).
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.210 Policy. ( a ) *Regulations.* It is HUD's policy that, in accordance with the intent of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.*), and with other applicable federal statutes, participants in HUD's housing and healthcare programs be responsible individuals and organizations who will honor their legal, financial and contractual obligations. Accordingly, as provided in this subpart, HUD will review the prior participation of Controlling Participants, as defined in § 200.212 and § 200.216, as a prerequisite to participation in HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare programs listed in § 200.214.
( b ) *Processing Guide.* The regulations in this subpart are supplemented by the Processing Guide for Previous Participation Reviews of Prospective Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Programs' Participants (Guide), which is found on HUD's Web site at *www.hud.gov .* This Guide elaborates on the basic procedures involved in the previous participation review process. For any significant changes made to this Guide, HUD will provide advance notice and the opportunity to comment, providing a comment period of no less than 30 days.
### §901. Claims of bona fide purchasers; establishment of rights

If any person claiming to be a bona fide purchaser of any lands erroneously patented or certified shall present his claim to the Secretary of the Interior prior to the institution of a suit to cancel a patent or certification, and if it shall appear that he is a bona fide purchaser, the Secretary of the Interior shall request that suit be brought in such case against the patentee, or the corporation, company, person, or association of persons for whose benefit the certification was made, for the value of said land, which in no case shall be more than the minimum Government price thereof, and the title of such claimant shall stand confirmed. An adverse decision by the Secretary of the Interior on the bona fides of such claimant shall not be conclusive of his rights, and if such claimant, or one claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, but who has not submitted his claim to the Secretary of the Interior, is made a party to such suit, and if found by the court to be a bona fide purchaser, the court shall decree a confirmation of the title, and shall render a decree in behalf of the United States against the patentee, corporation, company, person, or association of persons for whose benefit the certification was made for the value of the land as hereinbefore provided. Any bona fide purchaser of lands patented or certified to a railroad company, and who is not made a party to such suit, and who has not submitted his claim to the Secretary of the Interior, may establish his right as such bona fide purchaser in any United States court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, or at his option, as prescribed in sections 896 and 897 of this title.

(Mar. 2, 1896, ch. 39, §2, 29 Stat. 43.)
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 Quarterly Report of Roomlinx, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form


10−QSB
for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and


Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael S. Wasik,
Chief


Executive
Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the SARBANES−OXLEY Act of 2002, that:





1. The
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 consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operation of
the Company.





Date:
9/10/08





By:
            /s/ Michael S.
      WasikMichael
      S. WasikChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
SECTION 2. The New Subsidiary represents and warrants to the Administrative Agent and theSecured Parties (as defined in the Security Agreement) that (a) this Supplement has been dulyauthorized, executed and delivered by it and constitutes its legal, valid and bindingobligation, enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability maybe limited by Debtor Relief Laws and by general principles of equity and (b) each of the schedulesto the Schedule Agreement is hereby supplemented to reflect the information shown on the attachedSchedule A (with references to the Closing Date in the applicable provision of the SecurityAgreement being deemed to mean the date hereof for the purposes of such information to be providedby the New Subsidiary).SECTION 3. This Supplement may be executed in counterparts (and by different parties heretoon different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when takentogether shall constitute a single contract. This Supplement shall become effective when theAdministrative Agent shall have received a counterpart of this Supplement that bears the signatureof the New Subsidiary, and the Administrative Agent has executed a counterpart hereof. Delivery ofan executed signature page to this Supplement by facsimile transmission or other electroniccommunication shall be as effective as delivery of a manually signed counterpart of thisSupplement.SECTION 4. Except as expressly supplemented hereby, the Security Agreement shall remain infull force and effect.**SECTION 5. THIS SUPPLEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.**SECTION 6. If any provision contained in this Supplement is held to be invalid, illegal orunenforceable, the legality, validity, and enforceability of the remaining provisions containedherein and in the Security Agreement shall not be affected or impaired thereby. The invalidity ofa provision in a particular jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceable suchprovision in any other jurisdiction.SECTION 7. All communications and notices hereunder shall be in writing and given as providedin Section 12 of the Security Agreement.SECTION 8. The New Subsidiary agrees to reimburse the Administrative Agent for its reasonableout-of-pocket expenses in connection with the execution and delivery of this Supplement, includingthe reasonable fees, other charges and disbursements of counsel for the Administrative Agent.
 
2

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the New Subsidiary and the Administrative Agent have duly executed thisSupplement to the Security Agreement as of the day and year first above written.           **BRIM HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,**
### steam_record - Fw: TES Filer City Station - Plant ID 04170 - Request for extension to complete Questionnaire

FYI

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 09:09PM -----

To: Jezebele Alicea /DC/USEPA/US@EPA
From: Roger R Burger <rrburger@cmsenergy.com>

Date: 07/02/2010 06:39PM
Subject: Fw: TES Filer City Station - Plant ID 04170 - Request for extension to complete Questionnaire

Change of email address.

----- Forwarded by Roger R Burger/CONTRACT/CMS on 07/02/2010 05:38 PM -----

Good afternoon:

On behalf of the TES Filer City Station - Plant ID 04170 we are requesting an extension to complete the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines. Filer City received Version 2: Coal and Petroleum Coke - OMB Control Number: 2040-0281 on Friday, June 18, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. eastern daylight time.

Filer City has very limited staff and no designated person for water issues. We are currently involved in completing the Section 114 Testing requir ed by the Air Division of EPA, undergoing an au dit by the Reliability First Corporation for NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corp oration), preparing for a pe rformance review required by our power purchase agreement, preparing for a health and safety audit, and have a new plant manager. We will pr obably work with a consultant on this project which will require ac climation and orientatio n, plus a lengthy revi ew of documentation.

We appreciate your review and consideration and review of this request and sincerely hope you can grant us additional time.

If you have any questions, please feel to contact me.

Thank you very much.

Roger R. Burger Plant Manager T.E.S. Filer City Station (231) 723-6573 Ext. 102 (231) 723-4766 fax (231) 690-0308 mobile rrburger@cmsenergy.com 

### From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <steamhel p@ er g .com>

Date: 7/2/2010 8:10 PM

Sub j ect: Fw: TES Filer Cit y Station - Plant ID 04170 - Re q uest for extension to com p lete Questionnaire

From: Roger R Burger/CONTRACT/CMS

To: Alicea.jezeblele@epa.gov

Date: 07/02/2010 05:36 PM

Subject: TES Filer City Station - Plant ID 04170 - Requ est for extension to complete Questionnaire 

## Pa g e 1 of 1

6/23/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C33537DDO

...
§ 55.1 Purpose. ( a ) ( 1 ) The purpose of Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, as amended, is “to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.”
( 2 ) The purpose of Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, is “to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.”
( 3 ) This part implements requirements consistent with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, as amended, and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and employs the principles of the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management. These regulations apply to all proposed actions for which approval is required, either from HUD (under any applicable HUD program) or from a recipient (under programs subject to 24 CFR part 58), that are subject to potential harm by location in floodplains or wetlands. Covered actions include acquisition, construction, demolition, improvement, disposition, financing, and use of properties located in floodplains or wetlands.
( b ) [Reserved]
[59 FR 19107, Apr. 21, 1994, as amended at 78 FR 68728, Nov. 15, 2013; 89 FR 30903, Apr. 23, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VITECH
AMERICA, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998                        
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1998              
<CASH>                               26,666,953              
<SECURITIES>                                  0              
<RECEIVABLES>                        60,129,181              
<ALLOWANCES>                          1,600,266              
<INVENTORY>                          35,254,746              
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    128,078,048              
<PP&E>                               16,125,922              
<DEPRECIATION>                          410,905              
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      165,300,354              
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                45,480,620              
<BONDS>                              61,224,354              
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0              
<PREFERRED>                                   0              
<COMMON>                             25,486,848              
<OTHER-SE>                           31,228,041              
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        165,300,354              
<SALES>                              33,774,644              
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     33,774,644              
<CGS>                                20,707,324              
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        27,844,684              
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0              
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0              
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,412,179              
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       3,392,108              
<INCOME-TAX>                            258,560              
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   3,106,500              
<DISCONTINUED>                                0              
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0              
<CHANGES>                                     0              
<NET-INCOME>                          3,106,500              
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.28              
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.28              
                                                 
           

</TABLE>
### §512. Approval of paper contracts; time for performance; bonds

A contract for furnishing paper is not valid until approved by the Joint Committee on Printing. The award of a contract for furnishing paper shall designate a reasonable time for its performance. The contractor shall give bond in an amount fixed and approved by the Committee.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1244.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §8 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §6, 28 Stat. 602; Mar. 3, 1917, ch. 163, §6, 39 Stat. 1121).
#### § 242.20 Reopening of expired commitments.

An expired commitment may be reopened if a request for reopening is received by HUD no later than 90 days after the date of expiration of the commitment. The reopening request shall be accompanied by a fee of 50 cents per thousand dollars of the amount of the expired commitment. A commitment that has expired because of failure to pay the commitment fee may be reopened only upon payment of the commitment fee and the reopening fee. If the reopening request is not received by HUD within the required 90-day period, a new application accompanied by an application fee must be submitted. If a commitment for an increased amount has expired because of failure to pay an additional commitment fee based on the amount of the increase, the reopening fee shall be computed on the basis of the amount of the commitment increase rather than on the amount of the original commitment.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Global Matrechs, Inc.
      (the “Registrant”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned President, Chief Executive Officer, and acting Chief Financial
      Officer of the Registrant, certifies, to his best knowledge and belief, 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, as amended; and




(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.






Date:       November
                17, 2005
            By:
            /s/ Michael
                SheppardName:Michael
                SheppardTitle:President,
                CEO and acting CFO
July 25, 2013

Mr. Robert Finamore

Division C hief

, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Branch U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 0143

, Application of Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd

. for Exemption Authority

Dear Mr. Finamore,

By letter dated July 19, 2013, Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd. (NCA ) h as requested removal of the current prior approval requirement for third, fourth, and fifth freedom cargo charters and more specifically NCA requests exemption authority under 49 U.S.C. § 40109 to the extent necessary to enable NCA to engage in foreign charter air transportation of property and mail between any point or points in Japan and any point or points in the United States and between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in a third country or countries to operate

.

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc

. objects to NCA ’ s application on reciprocity grounds in that Jap an Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) does not grant non

- exempt charter authority without 15days advance application of the date of the flight

. Evergreen International Airlines ’ July 10, 2013 application to

JCAB for 3 rd Freedom charter flight from New York ’ s JFK Airport to Okinawa, Japan ’ s Naha A irport

was replied to by JCAB on July 11, 2013 [

... . Evergreen ’ s landing permissions will not be approved until July, 26 2013

... ]

.

Objection to NCA ’ s applicati on is not our desired position as we would much rather see the elimination of all unnecessary regulatory constraints. However, when a non

- U.S. regulatory entity has elected to adopt such restraints, we believe it is incumbent on o ur government to apply standards of reciprocity in order to maintain equality for U.S. air carriers.

B est regards

,

Calvin Harmon

Vice President

, Sales and Marketing (503) 472

- 0011

- Telephone
calvin.harmon@evergreenairlines.com

cc: Cou n sel for Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd

All Carriers served with Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd application