alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6038

BEAUTANOUS COOR, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus ROBERT A. STOCKS, Lieutenant of the Goldsboro Police Department; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATORS; WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; RICHARD W. RIDDLE, Director of Controlled Substances Tax Division, North Carolina Department of Revenue; JANICE H. FAULKNER, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Revenue; E. B. PARKER, Wayne County Attorney; CHRISTOPHER E. ALLEN, Assistant Attorney General, Revenue Section, North Carolina; G. K. BUTTERFIELD,JR., Judge of General Court of Justice, Superior Court 8B, Wayne County North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-97-396-5-F) Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Beautanous Coor, Appellant Pro Se. William Harrell Everett, Jr., EVERETT, WOMBLE & FINAN, Goldsboro, North Carolina; Christopher Edward Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Philip A. Baddour, Jr., BADDOUR, PARKER, HINE & WELLONS, Goldsboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Beautanous Coor appeals from the district court’s order andorder on reconsideration dismissing his civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from a tax assessment imposed by the North Carolina Department of Revenue. Because Coor’s challenges to the assessment have already been rejected by the Wayne County Superior Court in Coor v. Wayne County Sheriff , No. 94-CVS-596 (May 24, 1994), his federal action is barred under the full faith and credit doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1994); Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. , 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). Moreover, we previously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an earlier federal action in which Coor challenged the same assessment in Coor v. Smith, No. 95-2733 (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 1996) (unpublished). This action is therefore also barred under the doctrine of res judicata. See Migra , 465 U.S. at 77 n.1. Accordingly, the district court’s orders dismissing this action are affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.260 Allocation of washed coal. ( a ) When coal is subjected to washing, the washed coal must be allocated to the leases from which it was extracted.
( b ) When the net output of coal from a washing plant is derived from coal obtained from only one lease, the quantity of washed coal allocable to the lease will be based on the net output of the washing plant.
( c ) When the net output of coal from a washing plant is derived from coal obtained from more than one lease, unless determined otherwise by BLM, the quantity of net output of washed coal allocable to each lease will be based on the ratio of measured quantities of coal delivered to the washing plant and washed from each lease compared to the total measured quantities of coal delivered to the washing plant and washed.
EXHIBIT 12.2



Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Hannah Lee, Chief Financial Officer of The9 Limited (the Company), certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of the Company;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over
financial reporting; and



5. The Companys other
certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):



(a) All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 30, 2005
|                    | 
|By:                 |  | /s/    Hannah Lee      
|Name:               |  | Hannah Lee             
|Title:              |  | Chief Financial Officer
www.uavsolutions.com 8280 Patuxent Range Rd. Suite E · Jessup, MD 20794 · (Phone) 240-456-0195
UAV Solutions, Inc. is a woman-owned small business that designs, manufactures and delivers innovative unmanned systems. Our state-of-the-art facilities allow us to rapidly design, assemble, 

integrate and test high quality production systems. Helping our public and private sector customers fulfi ll their most important missions is our passion. UAVS products are export controlled and may 

require U.S. Government authorization prior to export or re-export.

Tactical GCS Portable GCS

The UAV Solutions, Inc. (UAVS) line of fi xed wing UAS, developed for military and commercial use, is built from 

7075 aircraft grade aluminum and composite materials. Our systems are designed for ease of use to accomplish 

long endurance missions. The UAVS-developed Dragon View combined electro-optic/infrared imager with pan and title 

stabilized gimbal was designed for these and other UAS. Our systems also have the capability to carry different ISR or 

multi-spectral sensors. We have adopted an open architecture philosophy for software and hardware components that 

provides customers with fl exibility for future product enhancement. UAVS designs and builds ground control systems 

for command and control of unmanned vehicles. These solutions range from a Portable Tactical Ground Control System 

(GCS) with three screens for mission planning and video viewing – ideal for larger aircraft and larger crews - to the 

Tactical GCS with two screens to a lower cost solution that is a communications radio which can be attached to an 

IP-based tough book or lap top. A common GCS can be used for UAVS fi xed wing and multi rotor platforms.

Features:

• Fully autonomous systems with multiple user modes

• Open architecture systems

• Comprehensive Operations and Maintenance Manuals including maintenance schedule and troubleshooting guide
00URT0FCRIMINALAPPBAL8 „ „cMIPD -r" ' / afc- / /, ^ RB 20 2015 MOTtOWOENIED /^/^^/y1/^. 7HffW^(g\

AM Acosia,Clerk ~V~7/- / /i^

--'•t

£//S/r)iSSu,~& Alnt //./>-? /MsTof/fa&4*/£#/£< /^nOrjW

Ufti. /Ifac/aFa/i&&faj <&?s ZMhmX. -fetid* 9fr rCJ.

iv/fatetz efw#^^4^*r J&hfr*/> oJ 0/'tf/&faJ

/hefct? Mrs £'<sev /W o/v/WissaSs fat/ /nrfo/izr/ -/»

/Us/hefaiy o/L /32s^ ^ «£3£^6^/^

&<#e//QWi&rf'/ifa* r 4M//v&&t/6e/ //eOu/iu/-£&<t/

^ cfa&^^-i^Aefcfc (fe^5e/&l^diH&

y2<y*$•S&j/jtyse//fate,f
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 23

- 0733

_____________________________
A

ARON A C OOK , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County

. Gregory S. Parker , Judge

.

November 28, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
O STERHAUS , C.J., and B.L. T HOMAS and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Jasmine Russell Dixon
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

No response for Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0578

CITY OF WHITEFISH,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ALEXANDRU CURRY,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 27, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 20 2022

05/20/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0578
#### The People of the State of New York v. Gustave Isear.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted insofar as to permit the appeal to be heard on the original record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points, on condition that the appellant serves one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points upon the District Attorney, New York County, and files 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies of appellant’s points, together with the original record, with this court and on the further condition that the appeal be perfected and noticed for argument for - a term on or before the March 1961 Term of this court. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., of 100 Centre Street, New York, New York is assigned as counsel for the appellant for the purposes of the appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

| 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 operation of the      Company. |
|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                               |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/   Iain      A. McCready                         |   |
| Iain      A. McCreadyChief      Executive OfficerMay      15, 2009 |   |

----
#### § 251.2 [Reserved]
Douglas Hetzler

RedJaxx Productions 536 Treyburn Cir

. San Ramon, CA 94583
I, Douglas Hetzler, hereby submit this petition for exemption under Section 333; FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112

- 95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333. I request this exemption in order to operate my UAV/UAS, DJI Inspire 1 Professional Quadcopter Aircraft, in order to provide services for profit to include aerial photography, aerial cinematography, aerial filming and photography for real estate, construction firms, agricultural modeling, crop monitoring operations, aerial mapping, special events to include but not limited to weddings, private or public parties/events, business advertising, promotional events, geological surveying, and environmental studies.

The abi lity to provide these services to other local businesses and individuals in my community will benefit them by opening up opportunities they otherwise did not have before. Traditional methods of aerial photography/videography are simply not viable options f or the average consumer as they are costly and involve greater risks to everyone involved; i.e. the use of larger aircraft carrying humans and flammable fuel. By utilizing the UAV/UAS the same results can be achieved with much safer conditions.

Prior to each flight/operation of the UAV/UAS, I will conduct a Pre

- Flight Safety Inspection. All flights will be performed areas cleared for flight using www.skyvector.com to make sure we are in authorized airspace. Flights will not take place over densely populated areas or private property without the owner’s permission. The UAV/UAS will only be operated within visual line of sight and will not be flown near airports or above 400 feet. Any and all repairs will be performed only by the manufacturers authorized rep air facilities/ providers. The FAA can be confident that operations of this UAV/UAS will achieve at least the equivalent or greater level of safety.
The requests of this petition are similar to those of Mr. Jase W. Robak, Mr. Todd Thomas DronePics, Brand on Drivon, and Mr. Mike Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, all of whom have received

Section 333 exemptions for comparable aircraft for similar operations.
The specific sections of 14 C.F.R from which I am seeking exemption are as follows: 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C. F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4), & (5); 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. 61.133 (a); 14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) & (c); 14 C.F.R 91.7(a) 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2); 14C.F.R. 91.109(a); 14 C.F.R. 91.119; 14 C.F.R. 91.121; 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a); 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(2}; 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b).
I truly thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Douglas Hetzler President RedJaxx Productions
From: Raba, Jim 

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:06 PM 

To: Raba, Jim 

Subject: DOE - Distribution Transformers - Public Meeting and Supplementary Analysis 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The U.S, Department of Energy (DOE) will hold a public meeting on June 20, 2012, to discuss additional

information about the liquid‐immersed distribution transformers equipment classes that were analyzed

in the February 10, 2012, notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and addressed during the February 23,

2012, public meeting.  In particular, DOE is supplementing the NOPR analysis to include additional trial

standard levels that embody separate equipment classes for several different types of liquid‐immersed

distribution transformers, such as pole‐mounted and pad‐mounted distribution transformers.

For more information, please link to:  

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers.ht

ml

DOE invites comment, data, and information about the equipment classes under consideration.  

James Raba 

Appliances & Commercial Equipment Standards 

Building Technologies Program 

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Telephone: (202) 586-8654
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.173 When may the Regional Supervisor direct an SOO or SOP? The Regional Supervisor may direct a suspension when: ( a ) You failed to comply with an applicable law, regulation, order, or provision of a lease or permit; or
( b ) The suspension is in the interest of National security or defense.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Questions on General Credit Control and Debt Management

              																	United States. Congress. Joint Committee on the Economic Report. Subcommittee on General Credit Control and Debt Management					 and 	Eighty-Second Congress, 1951-1953. 						*Questions on General Credit Control and Debt Management*,												Washington: 								Government Printing Office, 										October 12, 1951,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/412,			accessed on September 20, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### In re ZIEGLER.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

In the matter of the application of William H. Ziegler for the appointment of appraisers, etc.

PER CURIAM.

Order and judgment thereon dismissing application affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

HOOKER, J., not voting.
NUMBER 13-19-00520-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

ANTOINE BENSON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 274th District Court

of Hays County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant, Antoine Benson, filed a notice of appeal on September 12, 2019 from 

cause number CR-17-0907-C in the 347th District Court of Hays County, Texas.1 The 

 1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a 

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

notice of appeal also references trial court cause number CR-18-1279-C.

2 Our review 

of the documents before the Court shows the trial court granted the State’s motion to 

dismiss cause number CR-17-0907-C on August 29, 2019.

On October 22, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that 

there is no final appealable judgment and requested correction of this defect within ten 

days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has failed to respond to the Court’s 

directive. 

A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the trial court 

enters an appealable order. See TEX. R. APP.P. 26.2(a)(1). Generally, a state appellate 

court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has

been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 

446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, 

no pet.). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the 

opinion that there is no conviction to be appealed and this Court lacks jurisdiction over 

the matters herein. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

JURISDICTION.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

21st day of November, 2019.

 2 Trial court cause number CR-18-1279-C is before this Court in cause number 13-19-00519-CR.
§ 550.1451 What may BOEM do if I violate a statute, regulation, order, or lease term relating to a Federal oil and gas lease? ( a ) If we believe that you have not followed any requirement of a statute, regulation, order, or lease term for any Federal oil or gas lease, we may send you a Notice of Noncompliance informing you what the violation is and what you need to do to correct it to avoid civil penalties under 30 U.S.C. 1719(a) and (b).
( b ) We will serve the Notice of Noncompliance by registered mail or personal service using the most current address on file as maintained by the BOEM Leasing Office in your respective Region.
# Ken Lloyd, Denver Regional Air Quality Council (Colorado)

February 24, 2016

Summary of USB estimates

(2 pages)USBackgroundOzonePercent Contribution to 2017 Design ValueKen Lloyd,Executive DirectorSource: EPA Implementation of the 2015 Primary Ozone NAAQS: Issues Associatedwith Background Ozone White Paper for Discussion, Dec. 22, 201555%57%90%70%69%52%49%44%42%53%47%41%35%31%37%37%33%30%30%10%11%4%10%14%6%2%6%3%7%3%15%19%40%25%29%49%32%23%35%32%6%20%17%42%49%50%55%40%50%44%46%29%38%34%18%38%47%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%%State%Interstate%USBackgroundWestCaliforniaEast2017ContributionstoOzoneChatfield Monitor (Douglas County, Colorado)USBackground47.3ppb61%Colorado17.8ppb23%Interstate12.4ppb16%Ken Lloyd,Executive DirectorSource: Denver 2011/2017 Modeling Update, RambollEnviron and Alpine Geophysics, February 8, 20162017 Design Value:77.6 ppb
To : Jeff Vanderlip < j vanderlip@trcc.com>, Cc: John Schaeffer/DC/USEPA/US, Bcc: Subject: Request for extension for receipt of test data for CASRN 127-68-4 (HPV 3) From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US - Tuesday 12/11/2012 01:59 PM



### Dear Mr. Vanderlip, EPA has carefully considered your request for an extension of the date to submit test data required under the HPV 3 Test Rule for CASRN 127-68-4 . We are very much aware of the difficulties finding and schedule work with a laboratory to conduct the testing. We are also aware of some initial problems working out the protocols and getting final approval so the testing could start.. Based on our conversations and correspondence regarding these various issues we have decided to approve the extension of the time to submit data to July 13, 2012. FYI, I will retire at the end of the year . All future correspondence should be directed to John Schaeffer who will be you contact point on all issues related to this test rule.

CASRN 127-68-4 Tiarco.pd f 127-68-4 Tiarco.pd



### Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D. Chemical Information and Testing Branch Chemical Control Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 202-564-8091
#### § 285.421 How long will a suspension be in effect?

A suspension will be in effect for the period specified by BSEE. If BSEE determines that the circumstances giving rise to a suspension ordered under § 285.417 cannot be resolved within 5 years, the Secretary may initiate cancellation of the lease or grant, as provided in § 285.437.