alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7123 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY W. DODD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (2:02-cr-00207-ALL; 2:05-cv-00634)

Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 7, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy W. Dodd, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, Acting

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Timothy W. Dodd seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Dodd that the failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Dodd failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Dodd has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 

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
**EXHIBIT32.2**

BRIGGS &STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q forQuarterly Period Ended October 1, 2006

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended October 1, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James E. Brenn,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the bestof my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ James E. Brenn |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| James E. Brenn          |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
| November 3, 2006        |   |   |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### 213.106-1-70 Soliciting competition—tiered evaluation of offers.

See limitations on the use of tiered evaluation of offers at 215.203-70.

[72 FR 42314, Aug. 2, 2007]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Awards and Facilities Committee, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

# TIME AND DATE: 

Tuesday, January 26, 2021, from 12:00-1:00 p.m. EST.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

# STATUS: 

Closed

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's opening remarks, Discussion of Mid-scale Research Infrastructure Track 2 awards, and Chair's closing remarks.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Michelle McCrackin,                         *mmccrack@nsf.gov,*                         (703) 292-7000. Meeting information and updates may be found at                         *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​meetings/​notices.jsp#sunshine.*                         Please refer to the National Science Board website                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb*                         for general information.                    

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2021-01408 Filed 1-15-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### SALZMAN v. MANDEL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

Appeal—Limitations—Entry op Judgment—Service op Copy—Defects in Copy.

The abbreviation of the word “Thomas” to “Thos.,” in the clerk’s signature upon the copy of the judgment served upon defendant’s attorney, is insufficient to invalidate the notice of entry of judgment, so as to preclude that notice from setting in motion the time within which an appeal from the judgment must be taken.

Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term. .

Action by Yetta Salzman against Adolf Manclel. From an order denying a motion to compel plaintiff’s attorney to accept notice of appeal, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.

Joseph Wilkenfeld, for appellant.

Otto Horwitz, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order denying defendant’s" motion to compel the plaintiff’s attorney to receive and accept a notice of appeal from a judgment in this action.. The notice of appeal was returned upon the ground that it was served after the time to appeal had expired. The defendant seeks relief from the default upon the ground that the notice of entry of judgment, as served upon him, was defective and insufficient to start running the time within which to appeal. The sole defect relied upon is that, while the judgment is signed “Thomas F. Smith, Clerk,” the copy served upon defendant’s attorney is signed “Thos. F. Smith, Clerk.”

The simple abbreviation of the word “Thomas” to “Thos.,” in the clerk’s signature upon the copy judgment served upon the defendant’s attorney, seems, alone, insufficient to invalidate the. notice of entry from which to start running the time to appeal.' Gabay v. Doane, 38 Misc. Rep. 661, 78 N. Y. Supp. *224,*upon which the defendant relies, is distinguishable, in that two other mistakes occurred in the copy judgment. See, also, Falker v. Railroad Co., 100 N. Y. 86, *2*N. E. 628; People v. Keator, 101 N. Y. 610, 3 N. E. 903.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Jimmy J. Jernstad, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07974

Honorable Charles R. Norgle Sr.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, June 28, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr: Civil case terminated.

Mailed notice(ewf, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07974 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:138
Exhibit 32.1

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended March 29,
2009

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 Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 29, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Shiely, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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 operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John S. Shiely     
|John S. Shiely         
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 6, 2009            

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Axcess Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Report***”), I, Allan L. Frank, VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Principal Accounting andFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periodsindicated.

 

 
| /S/  ALLAN L. FRANK                                                                                |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Allan  L. Frank                                                                                    |   |
| Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary  and Principal Accounting and Financial Officer |
|                                                                                               |   |
| Dated:   April 14, 2010                                                                  |   |

 

----
#### Hood *et al. v.*Southern Railway Company.

December 12, 1912.

Petition for injunction. ' Before Judge Jones. Jackson superior court. January 6, 1912.

IF. *W. Stark*and *Cobb & Erwin,*for plaintiffs.

*John J. & Boy M. Strickland,*for defendant.

Beck, J.

1. While certain documentary evidence tending to show the width of the defendant company’s right of way remote from the place at which its agents were constructing a side-track, the act against which an injunction was sought, was irrelevant, it was not of sufficient materiality to require a reversal of the judgment of the court below.

2. There was no abuse of discretion in refusing the interlocutory injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Frederic M. Richards et al. *v.*Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Wilton et al.

*Robert A. Fuller,*in support of the petition.

Submitted February 5

decided February 19, 1975

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted.
#### 1852.219-85 Conditions for final payment—SBIR and STTR contracts.

As prescribed in 1819.7302(f), insert the following clause:

# Conditions for Final Payment—SBIR AND STTR Contracts (OCT 2006)

As a condition for final payment under this contract, the Contractor shall provide the following certifications as part of its final payment invoice request:

During performance of this contract—

1. Essentially equivalent work performed under this contract has not been proposed for funding to another Federal agency;

2. No other Federal funding award has been received for essentially equivalent work performed under this contract;

3. Deliverable items submitted under this contract have not been submitted as deliverable items under another Federal funding award;

4. *For SBIR contracts:* The subcontracting limitation set forth in this contract was not exceeded except as approved in writing by the Contracting Officer on (*insert date of approval or modification number.*);

5. *For STTR contracts:* The subcontracting limitation set forth in this contract was not exceeded;

6. *For SBIR contracts:* The primary employment of the principal investigator (PI) identified in this SBIR contract was with the Contractor, except as approved in writing by the Contracting Officer on (*insert date of approval or modification number*); and

7. *For STTR contracts:* The primary employment of the principal investigator (PI) identified in this STTR contract was the SBC/Contractor or the research institution (RI). The PI identified in the STTR contract was considered key in the performance of this contract. The SBC/Contractor, whether or not the employer of the PI, did exercise primary management direction and control over the PI and was overall responsible for the PI's performance under this contract. Any substitutions of this individual were approved in writing by the Contracting Officer on (*insert date of approval or modification number*).

I understand that the willful provision of false information or concealing a material fact in this representation is a criminal offense under Title 18 USC, Section 1001, False Statements, as well as Title 18 U.S.C., Section 287, False Claims.

(End of clause)

[71 FR 61688, Oct. 19, 2006]
203.903 Policy. ( 1 ) *Prohibition.* 10 U.S.C. 4701 prohibits contractors and subcontractors from discharging, demoting, or otherwise discriminating against an employee as a reprisal for disclosing, to any of the entities listed at paragraph (3) of this section, information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of gross mismanagement of a DoD contract, a gross waste of DoD funds, an abuse of authority relating to a DoD contract, a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a DoD contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract), or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Such reprisal is prohibited even if it is undertaken at the request of an executive branch official, unless the request takes the form of a non-discretionary directive and is within the authority of the executive branch official making the request.
( 2 ) *Classified information.* As provided in section 827(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, nothing in this subpart provides any rights to disclose classified information not otherwise provided by law.
( 3 ) Entities to whom disclosure may be made: ( i ) A Member of Congress or a representative of a committee of Congress.
( ii ) An Inspector General that receives funding from or has oversight over contracts awarded for or on behalf of DoD.
( iii ) The Government Accountability Office.
( iv ) A DoD employee responsible for contract oversight or management.
( v ) An authorized official of the Department of Justice or other law enforcement agency.
( vi ) A court or grand jury.
( vii ) A management official or other employee of the contractor or subcontractor who has the responsibility to investigate, discover, or address misconduct.
( 4 ) *Disclosure clarified.* An employee who initiates or provides evidence of contractor or subcontractor misconduct in any judicial or administrative proceeding relating to waste, fraud, or abuse on a DoD contract shall be deemed to have made a disclosure.
( 5 ) *Contracting officer actions.* A contracting officer who receives a complaint of reprisal of the type described in paragraph (1) of this section shall forward it to legal counsel or to the appropriate party in accordance with agency procedures.
[58 FR 59853, Sept. 30, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 11337, Feb. 28, 2014; 79 FR 23278, Apr. 28, 2014; 87 FR 76990, Dec. 16, 2022]
[J-57-2016] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**IN RE: OBJECTION TO NOMINATION PETITIONS OF JARED SOLOMON TO**  **BE A CANDIDATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION FOR OFFICE MEMBER**  **OF THOSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR 202ND DISTRICT** 

**APPEAL OF: MARK COHEN :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 11 EAP 2016** 

**Appeal from the order entered on March 18, 2016 in the Commonwealth Court at**  **No. 116 M.D. 2016.**

**SUBMITTED: March 24, 2016**



### ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, **this 5th day of April, 2016, the Order of the Commo nwealth Court is** 

**hereby affirmed in part and vacated in part. The po rtion of the order denying the** 

**Petition to Set Aside the Nomination Petition of Jar ed Solomon is affirmed. The portion** 

**of the order imposing costs against Mark Cohen is vacated a nd remanded. See In re** 

**Nomination Petition of Farnese, 17 A.3d 357 (Pa. 201 1). On remand, we direct that the** 

**Commonwealth Court’s final order assessing costs shall refer ence costs by category** 

**and the amounts assessed, and shall include a rationale for the imposition of such** 

**costs.**
----

EXHIBIT 23.1

 

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

            We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements pertaining to the 1991 Employee Stock Plan, the 1999 Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37072) related to resales of common shares deliverable upon the exchange of Liquid Yield Option Notes, and in the related Prospectuses, of Genentech, Inc. of our report dated January 14, 2003, except for the note titled Subsequent Event, as to which the date is February 13, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Genentech, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 
/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

 

Palo Alto, California
#### Clifford J. Scheiner, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 891]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2006, which dismissed the petition seeking to annul or modify the disciplinary suspension of medical privileges, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination was not in violation of lawful procedure or affected by an error of law, nor was it arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (CPLR 7803 [3]). The hospital’s bylaws allowed the presence of counsel for respondent at the hearing. There is no indication that counsel performed any decision-making function at the proceedings. The bylaws also provided for the Ad Hoc Committee to determine the relevance of evidence. There is no indication that relevant evidence was erroneously precluded. The record supports the conclusion that petitioner was not deprived of his right to due process. The penalty imposed was not shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see Matter of Chen v Administrative Review Bd. of State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct,*3 AD3d 617 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Williams, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
#### 1629.402 Foreign contracts.

The clause set forth in section 1652.229-70 shall be inserted in all FEHBP contracts performed outside the United States, its possessions, and Puerto Rico.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Johnny B. Stewart, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, the defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated January 3, 1962, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered October 7, 1958 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree and petit larceny, and sentencing him to serve a term of 10 to 20 years. Order affirmed. Defendant’s claim, even if true, that he was induced to waive extradition by the representation of an Assistant District Attorney that he would receive a maximum sentence of five years, is not a ground for vacating the judgment of conviction (cf. *Frisbie*v. *Collins,*342 U. S. 519, 522). An alleged similar representation, made by the District Attorney to defendant’s mother, after defendant was in custody in Suffolk County, likewise affords no ground for relief, as there was no reliance by defendant on that representation (cf. *People*v. *White,*309 N. Y. 636, 639). Defendant also contends that he was not represented at the trial by counsel of his own choosing. This contention is based on allegations: (1) that the attorney who did represent the defendant at the trial had not been retained for that purpose; and (2) that such attorney insisted upon the defendant’s standing trial despite defendant’s protest that he wished to plead guilty. We find nothing in the record, however, which indicates that at any time during the trial the defendant objected to his representation by such counsel; nor is there any claim that the trial court forced him to proceed with such counsel or that he was not adequately represented. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that defendant has not shown such a deprivation of fundamental rights as would warrant relief by way of *coram nobis*(cf. *People*v. *Sullivan,*3 N Y 2d 196). Since defendant would not be entitled to relief even if the allegations in his petition were to be established, the application was properly denied without a hearing *(People*v. *Tomaselli,*7 N Y 2d 350, 356; *People*v. *Brown,*7 N Y 2d 359, 361). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.