alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 19, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40371

Summary Calendar

DANIEL RAYHAAN ALI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE; ARTHUR VELASQUEZ;

RORY KNOTT; WILLIAM DUGGER,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CV-298

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Rayhaan Ali, Texas prisoner # 1077766, appeals the

district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his in forma pauperis

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Ali asserts that he was improperly

convicted of a disciplinary charge for refusing to shave his

beard, in light of a medical pass and his sincerely held

religious beliefs. He maintains that the disciplinary conviction

violated the First Amendment and various federal and state

statutes.
No. 06-40371

-2-

Because Ali’s challenge calls into question the validity of

his disciplinary conviction, and because Ali lost good-time

credits as a result of that conviction, his challenges are barred

because he has not shown that the disciplinary conviction has

been overturned. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648-49

(1997); cf. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751-55 (2004). To

the extent that the loss of privileges does not call into

question the duration of Ali’s confinement, he cannot establish

that he is entitled to relief on the merits of his allegations. 

See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 25 (5th Cir. 1995); Hernandez v.

Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).

Ali has not established that the district court abused its

discretion by dismissing his civil rights action as frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Berry v. Brady, 192

F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). As a result, the judgment of the

district court is affirmed.

The district court’s dismissal of Ali’s complaint as

frivolous counts as one strike under § 1915(g). Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Ali is cautioned

that if he accumulates three strikes, he may no longer proceed in

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7573

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DERRICK THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-93-168, CA-97-520)

Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: February 17, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order

affirming the magistrate judge’s denial of his motion to amend and

judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and judgment and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Thomas, Nos. CR-93-168;

CA-97-520 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 1997; Oct. 9, 1998). 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
Page 1 

 Order on CMC: C09-01246 CRB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

 

GREGORY BENDER, 

 

 Plaintiff,

vs. 

SONY ELECTRONICS INC., a 

Delaware corporation, 

 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 09-01246 CRB 

ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO 

RESCHEDULE INITIAL CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

 

Plaintiff Gregory Bender and defendant Sony Electronics 

Inc., through counsel, having moved the Court to reschedule the 

initial case management conference to a subsequent date; and 

Good cause appearing; 

 The initial case management conference date is rescheduled 

for March 12, 2010, at 8:30 a.m. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ____________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

David N. Kuhn - State Bar No. 73389 

Attorney-at-Law 

144 Hagar Avenue 

Piedmont, CA 94611 

Telephone:(510)653-4983 

E-mail: dnkuhn@pacbell.net 

Attorney for plaintiff Gregory Bender

Signed: February 23, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-01246-EDL Document 55 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 1
### **CHAPTER 13—RAILROAD SAFETY**
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOutput data formatter for the Electronically Scanned Thinned Array Radiometer (ESTAR) instrumentA prototype Output Data Formatter (ODF) for the ESTAR (Electronically Scanned Thinned Array Radiometer) instrument has been designed and tested. It employs programmable logic devices to format and tag correlator data for transmission to Earth. After accepting 170 bits or correlator and error data in parallel, it appends an identification word and then serially passes the data to the Small Explorer Data System (SEDS) for transmission at a maximum rate of greater than 15 Mb/sec. Implemented with two reprogrammable field programmable gate arrays (FPGA's), each contained in a 132-pin plastic pin grid array (PGA) package, the design is cascadeable, fully testable, and low-power.Document ID19930006340Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsChren, William A., Jr.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1993Subject CategoryElectronics And Electrical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-4432NAS 1.15:4432REPT-93B00007Accession Number93N15529Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930006340.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 99.36

          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 General Communication, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
A. Duncan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  May 9, 2003                     /s/
                                       Ronald A. Duncan
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       General Communication, Inc.


                                       1
<PAGE>
          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 General Communication, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M.
Lowber, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
         the Company.



Date:  May 9, 2003                     /s/
                                       John M. Lowber
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       General Communication, Inc.



                                       2
### §1418. Employment of land and naval forces in protection of rights

The President is authorized, at his discretion, to employ the land and naval forces of the United States to protect the rights of the discoverer or of his widow, heir, executor, administrator, or assigns.

(R.S. §5577.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §5577 derived from act Aug. 18, 1856, ch. 164, §5, 11 Stat. 120.
§ 1219.413 How will ONRR determine each Gulf producing State's share of the qualified OCS revenues (Phase I) from leases in the 181 Area in the Eastern Planning Area and the 181 South Area? ( a ) ONRR will determine the great circle distance between: ( 1 ) The geographic center of each applicable leased tract (Phase I); and
( 2 ) The point on the coastline of each Gulf producing State that is closest to the geographic center of each applicable leased tract (Phase I).
( b ) Based on these distances, we will calculate the qualified OCS revenues (Phase I) to disburse to each Gulf producing State as follows: ( 1 ) For each Gulf producing State, we will calculate and total, over all applicable leased tracts (Phase I), the mathematical inverses of the distances between the points on the State's coastline that are closest to the geographic centers of the applicable leased tracts (Phase I), and the geographic centers of the applicable leased tracts (Phase I). For applicable leased tracts intersected by the planning area administrative boundary line, we will use the geographic center of the entire lease for the inverse distance determination.
( 2 ) For each Gulf producing State, we will divide the sum of each State's inverse distances from all applicable leased tracts (Phase I) calculated under paragraph (1), by the sum of the inverse distances from all applicable leased tracts (Phase I) across all four Gulf producing States. In the formulas below, *I* *AL*, *I* *LA*, *I* *MS*, and *I* *TX* represent the sum of the inverses of the shortest distances between Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas and all applicable leased tracts (Phase I), respectively. We will multiply the result by the amount of shareable, qualified OCS revenues (Phase I). Alabama Share = (*I* *AL* ÷ (*I* *AL* + *I* *LA* + *I* *MS* + *I* *TX*)) × qualified OCS revenues (Phase I) Louisiana Share = (*I* *LA* ÷ (*I* *AL* + *I* *LA* + *I* *MS* + *I* *TX*)) × qualified OCS revenues (Phase I) Mississippi Share = (*I* *MS* ÷ (*I* *AL* + *I* *LA* + *I* *MS* + *I* *TX*)) × qualified OCS revenues (Phase I) Texas Share = (*I* *TX* ÷ (*I* *AL* + *I* *LA* + *I* *MS* + *I* *TX*)) × qualified OCS revenues (Phase I)
( 3 ) If, in any fiscal year, this calculation results in less than a 10-percent allocation of the qualified OCS revenues (Phase I) to any Gulf producing State, we will recalculate the distribution. We will allocate 10 percent of the qualified OCS revenues (Phase I) to the affected State and recalculate the other States' shares of the remaining qualified OCS revenues (Phase I), omitting from the calculation the State receiving the 10-percent minimum share.
### STEPS BALLASTS Release Analysis 4/27/99 Comments due on Web materials 5/18/99 Workshop 6/1/99 Comments Due on Workshop 6/15/99 NOPR drafting, review and approval 6/17/99 - 10/15/99

NOPR Published 10/15/99 Final Rule 1 7/3/2000 

## STEPS BALLASTS Release Analysis 

### 4127/99 Comments due on 5/18/99 Web materials Workshop 6/1/99 Comments Due on 6/15/99 Workshop NOPR drafting, 6/17/99

- 10/15/99 review and approval NOPRPublished 10/15/99 FinalRule 7/3/2000
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.1472 How will the Office of Hearings and Appeals conduct the hearing on the record?

If you request a hearing on the record under §§ 250.1454, 250.1456, 250.1462, or 250.1464, the hearing will be conducted by a Departmental Administrative Law Judge from the Office of Hearings and Appeals. After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will issue a decision in accordance with the evidence presented and applicable law.
TABLE OF CONTENTS     ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS  3      ARTICLE 2. THE GRANT AND EXERCISE OF PURCHASE OPTION  4      ARTICLE 3. EXERCISE PRICE  4      ARTICLE 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES  5      ARTICLE 5. OTHER COVENANTS  5      ARTICLE 6. CONFIDENTIALITY  6      ARTICLE 7. APPLICABLE LAW AND EVENTS OF DEFAULT  6      ARTICLE 8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION  6      ARTICLE 9. EFFECTIVENESS AND TERM  7      ARTICLE 10. AMENDMENT  7      ARTICLE 11. COUNTERPARTS  7      ARTICLE 12. MISCELLANEOUS  7      EXHIBIT 1 PROXY  8      
 
2

 
PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENTThis Purchase Option Agreement (“this Agreement”) is entered into in Beijing, People’s Republic ofChina (the “PRC”) on June 2, 2009 by and among:Party A: Fortune Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
#### § 4.32 Investigation by Office of Inspector General.

The Office of Inspector General shall review every alleged violation of Section 103. If after a review the Office of Inspector General determines that further investigation is not warranted, it shall notify the Ethics Law Division of that determination. If, after a review, the Office of Inspector General determines that additional investigation is warranted, it shall conduct the investigation and upon completion issue a report of the investigation to the Ethics Law Division as to each alleged violation.
#### § 15.2 Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this part.

*Applicant.* An individual or organization that manufactures or controls the production of an explosive or an explosive unit and that applies to MSHA for approval of that explosive or explosive unit.

*Approval.* A document issued by MSHA which states that an explosive or explosive unit has met the requirements of this part and which authorizes an approval marking identifying the explosive or explosive unit as approved as permissible.

*Explosive.* A substance, compound, or mixture, the primary purpose of which is to function by explosion.

*Extension of approval.* A document issued by MSHA which states that the change to an explosive or explosive unit previously approved by MSHA under this part meets the requirements of this part and which authorizes the continued use of the approval marking after the appropriate extension number has been added.

*Minimum product firing temperature.* The lowest product temperature at which the explosive or explosive unit is approved for use under this part.

*Post-approval product audit.* Examination, testing, or both, by MSHA of approved explosives or explosive units selected by MSHA to determine whether they meet the technical requirements and have been manufactured as approved.

*Sheath.* A chemical compound or mixture incorporated in a sheathed explosive unit and which forms a flame inhibiting cloud on detonation of the explosive.

*Sheathed explosive unit.* A device consisting of an approved or permissible explosive covered by a sheath encased in a sealed covering and designed to be fired outside the confines of a borehole.

*Test detonator.* An instantaneous detonator that has a strength equivalent to that of a detonator with a base charge of 0.40-0.45 grams PETN.

[53 FR 46761, Nov. 18, 1988; 54 FR 351, Jan. 5, 1989]
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 of IMPSAT Fiber Networks on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Héctor Alonso, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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 result of operations of the registrant.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the
registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: August 13, 2004



/s/ Héctor AlonsoHéctor AlonsoChief Financial Officer




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert C. Satisfield, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court denying an application to vacate a judgment convicting defendant of first degree manslaughter on February 18,1949, without a hearing.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
C 09-1953 EMC 1

THOMAS N. STEWART, III - #88128

ATTORNEY AT LAW

369 BLUE OAK LANE, 2nd FLOOR

CLAYTON, CA 94517

TELEPHONE (925) 672-8452

TELEFAX (925) 673-1729

Attorneys for David Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID JOHNSON, Case No. C 09-1953 EMC

Plaintiff, STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; ORDER

v.

Orinda 19, LLC,

Defendant.

__________________________________/ 

 

The parties hereto stipulate as follows:

The parties have reached a full and final settlement of all issues in this action. A

Settlement Agreement between the parties has been fully executed. 

Some parts of the Settlement Agreement are to be performed in the future. The parties

shall comply with their Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is incorporated by reference as

if fully set forth. The parties request the Court to retain jurisdiction for two year from the date

hereof in order to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement under the authority of

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994).

Although the parties are hereby dismissing this action with prejudice, they agree that

Case 3:09-cv-01953-EMC Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 2
C 09-1953 EMC 2

the Court will retain jurisdiction over this action and the parties hereto in order to be able to

enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their

designated counsel that this action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(2), and the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement for

two years after the date hereof.

Date: February 16, 2010 Date: February 17, 2010

S/Sara Wilson, S/Thomas N. Stewart, III, 

Attorney for Defendant Attorney for Plaintiff

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Date: ________________________________

 Judge/Magistrate

Case 3:09-cv-01953-EMC Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-Q 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          86,338
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  231,248<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F2>
<PP&E>                                      12,003,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                 813,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,241,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F2>
<BONDS>                                      8,262,734
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    865,587
<COMMON>                                     3,681,742
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,604)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,241,515
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               441,194
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  244,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,794
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 66,638
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             66,638
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,774)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,864
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are stated net of allowances.
<F2>The Registrant does not report using a classified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>