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

**No. 10**  **- 7190** 

GARY ROBERT MOORE , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. GREGORY KNOWLIN, Warden, Respondent

– Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distric t of South Carolina , at Florence
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 4:09

- cv - 01258

- JFA )

Submitted : January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.

Ga ry Robert Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gary R obert Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny relief on his 28 U .S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition , and denying a certificate of appealability . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue a bsent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the dis trict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner mu st demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Moore ha s not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument w ould not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
236.272 Prequalification of sources. ( a ) Prequalification procedures may be used when necessary to ensure timely and efficient performance of critical construction projects. Prequalification— ( 1 ) Results in a list of sources determined to be qualified to perform a specific construction contract; and
( 2 ) Limits offerors to those with proven competence to perform in the required manner.
( b ) The head of the contracting activity must— ( 1 ) Authorize the use of prequalification by determining, in writing, that a construction project is of an urgency or complexity that requires prequalification; and
( 2 ) Approve the prequalification procedures.
( c ) For small businesses, the prequalification procedures must require the qualifying authority to— ( 1 ) Request a preliminary recommendation from the appropriate Small Business Administration regional office, if the qualifying authority believes a small business is not responsible;
( 2 ) Permit the small business to submit a bid or proposal if the preliminary recommendation is that the small business is responsible; and
( 3 ) Follow the procedures in FAR 19.6, if the small business is in line for award and is found nonresponsible.
About FOIA | About the Privacy Act | FOIA Reading Rooms**Making a Request** | FAQs | Contacts | Links



## Privacy Act Request Checklist

**Please include the following information in your request:**



- Title (for example: Dr, Miss, Mr, Mrs, Ms)
- Full name (required)
- Address (required)
- Daytime phone number (required)
- Description of requested records (required)
- Agency contacts
- Maximum dollar amount the requestor is willing to pay for the request (required)
- Request for a waiver of fees, if requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in your commercial interest.
- Explanation for a request for a waiver of fees (required if a waiver is requested)
- Statement signed under penalty of perjury stating that you are the person who you claim to be (required)
- Fax number
- Email address
- Attachment of supporting documents

|Last Modified: 10/17/2005
|-------------------------
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1469
#### James R. Sweeny, Appellant-Respondent, v. Harold J. Stout, Respondent, and William Hamilton, as President of Beta Delta Chapter of Beta Theta Pi, Appellant.

*Gib*son, P. J.

Plaintiff, then 21 years of age, a student at Cornell University and a member of the college fraternity from which he seeks recovery, was injured while attending a party sponsored by the fraternity and held at the fraternity house, when the costume which he was wearing became ignited and he sustained severe burns. The defendant Stout was a chaperone at the party and the complaint charges that he was “ negligent in that he did negligently light a match and hold it in the proximity of the clothing of the plaintiff causing the said clothing to ignite”. We perceive no ground for disturbing the jury’s verdict of no cause of action as against defendant Stout; and plaintiff’s brief upon this appeal advances none. The jury’s finding has the further result, in practical effect, of disposing of the second cause of action of the complaint adversely to plaintiff; that cause of action charging that the fraternity “was negligent in that the said Harold J. Stout, its agent, while acting as chaperone, did negligently cause the plaintiff’s clothing to be set on fire.” The remaining cause of action alleges that the fraternity “was charged with the duty of supervision, care, custody and control of the persons attending said social function” and that the fraternity was negligent in, among other things, engaging “incompetent” and “irresponsible” chaperones and failing “to provide a safe and properly controlled social event”. The record discloses no evidence that the fraternity breached any duty which it owed to plaintiff, who was a social guest and whose status was, therefore, that of a mere licensee, as is conceded. Even if we were to assume *arguendo*that plaintiff’s pleaded theory of liability, as above quoted, could be applied within the strictly delineated ambit of the familiar rule respecting the duty owed licensees, again the record would have to be found legally insufficient. As appears in part from the record *841and in part from the jury’s determination, the chaperonage was not inadequate; additionally, an off-duty campus policeman was stationed within the house, although his presence was not required by any rule; the party was orderly; and this unfortunate incident, the instantaneous result of a prank or of pure accident, was not one which was reasonably to be foreseen or prevented, However, if such an accident was reasonably to be anticipated, it would seem to follow, under the circumstances disclosed by this record, that to the extent that it was foreseeable, plaintiff would have to be found eontributorily negligent. Judgment and order affirmed as to defendant Stout, without costs. Judgment and order in respect of defendant Hamilton reversed, on the law and the facts, and complaint dismissed, without costs. Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### Mary I. Stone, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, and Olive Weinstein et al., Respondents.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on appellant’s typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of her typewritten brief and to serve one copy on respondents. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
Exhibit 31.2

                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

      I, Patrick L. Milton, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of YDI
Wireless, Inc., certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K of YDI
Wireless, Inc.;

      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; and

      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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report.


Date: March 25, 2004                            /s/ Patrick L. Milton
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Patrick L. Milton
                                        Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 197 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 197

         To provide sufficient time for legislation to be read.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2017

Mr. Paul submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         To provide sufficient time for legislation to be read.

    Resolved, That (a) it shall not be in order for the Senate to 
consider any bill, resolution, message, conference report, amendment 
between the Houses, amendment, treaty, or any other measure or matter 
until 1 session day has passed since introduction for every 20 pages 
included in the measure or matter in the usual form plus 1 session day 
for any number of remaining pages less than 20 in the usual form.
    (b)(1) Any Senator may raise a point of order that consideration of 
any bill, resolution, message, conference report, amendment, treaty, or 
any other measure or matter is not in order under subsection (a). No 
motion to table the point of order shall be in order.
    (2) Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended only by an affirmative 
vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. All motions 
to waive under this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not 
to exceed 3 hours equally divided between the Senator raising the point 
of order and the Senator moving to waive the point of order or their 
designees. A motion to waive the point of order shall not be amendable.
    (3) This resolution is enacted pursuant to the power granted to 
each House of Congress to determine the Rules of its Proceedings in 
clause 2 of section 5 of article I of the Constitution of the United 
States.
                                 <all>
```
#### 32.609 Delays in receipt of notices or demands.

If interest is accrued based on the date of the demand letter and delivery of the demand letter is delayed by the Government (*e.g.*, undue delay after dating at the originating office or delays in the mail), the date of the debt and accrual of interest shall be extended to a time that is fair and reasonable under the particular circumstances.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-86189 and 333-40922) and Form S-8(Nos. 333-82325, 333-51678 and 333-69034) of Wyndham International, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2005 with respect to our opinion relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules, except for Note 2b to theconsolidated financial statements related to accounting for income taxes, as to which date is May 16, 2005 and April 8, 2005 with respect to our opinions relating to internal control over financial reporting, except for the penultimateparagraph of Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, as to which the date is May 16, 2005 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. 

 

/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

May 16, 2005
# C_2019189EN.01003901.xml

| 5.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/39

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 June 2019

(2019/C 189/07)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1244 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,62 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4679 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88738 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6260 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1178 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 139,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7860 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,744 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 322,00 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2802 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7353 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,5295 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6116 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5111 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8143 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7062 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5396 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 330,90 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,4791 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7686 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4210 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 992,34 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6886 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,207 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,3390 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,188 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3638 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,1603 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,8740 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1244

JPY

Japanese yen

121,62

DKK

Danish krone

7,4679

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88738

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6260

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1178

ISK

Iceland króna

139,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7860

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,744

HUF

Hungarian forint

322,00

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2802

RON

Romanian leu

4,7353

TRY

Turkish lira

6,5295

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6116

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5111

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8143

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7062

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5396

KRW

South Korean won

1 330,90

ZAR

South African rand

16,4791

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7686

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4210

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 992,34

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6886

PHP

Philippine peso

58,207

RUB

Russian rouble

73,3390

THB

Thai baht

35,188

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3638

MXN

Mexican peso

22,1603

INR

Indian rupee

77,8740

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00002

- CR

B EECHER M ONTGOMERY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 396th District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1591282D )

October 6, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’ s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11

- 3793

___________

IN Re: MICHAEL CALABRESE, JR.,

Appellant

On Appeal from the U

. S

. District Court for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 10

- cv

- 0 6583)

___________

Argued April 11, 2012

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge , HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge

, and JONES, II, * District Judge

.

____________

O RDER AMENDING OPINION

____________

It appears that the Isabel C. Balboa the Trustee was in correctly identified as Attorney for

Trustee in the caption header of this Court’s opinion filed July 20, 2012 . The opinion is

hereby amended to correct this designation as follows:

Office of United States Trustee

535 Route 38 East

Suite 580

Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

Trustee

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

* The Honorable C. Darnell Jones, II, District Judge for the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.2 Date: August 1, 2012

tmk/cc: Nicholas S. Herron, Esq.

Marlene G. Brown, Esq.

Ramanjit K. Chawla, Esq.
#### 243.205 Contract clauses.
# C_2018382EN.01000901.xml

| 23.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

22 October 2018

(2018/C 382/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1494 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,63 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4603 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88425 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3310 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1456 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 135,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4688 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,848 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 323,12 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2905 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6669 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,5090 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6185 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5044 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0107 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7492 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5855 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 300,75 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,4250 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9801 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4325 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 467,72 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7797 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,841 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 75,0427 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,672 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2590 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,1820 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,5460 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1494

JPY

Japanese yen

129,63

DKK

Danish krone

7,4603

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88425

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3310

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1456

ISK

Iceland króna

135,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4688

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,848

HUF

Hungarian forint

323,12

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2905

RON

Romanian leu

4,6669

TRY

Turkish lira

6,5090

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6185

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5044

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0107

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7492

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5855

KRW

South Korean won

1 300,75

ZAR

South African rand

16,4250

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9801

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4325

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 467,72

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7797

PHP

Philippine peso

61,841

RUB

Russian rouble

75,0427

THB

Thai baht

37,672

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2590

MXN

Mexican peso

22,1820

INR

Indian rupee

84,5460

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
32.503-5 Administration of progress payments. ( a ) While the ACO may, in approving progress payment requests under 32.503-3 above, rely on the contractor's accounting system and certification without prepayment review, postpayment reviews (including audits when considered necessary) shall be made periodically, or when considered desirable by the ACO to determine the validity of progress payments already made and expected to be made.
( b ) These postpayment reviews or audits shall, as a minimum, include a determination of whether or not— ( 1 ) The unliquidated progress payments are fairly supported by the value of the work accomplished on the undelivered portion of the contract;
( 2 ) The applicable limitation on progress payments in the Progress Payments clause has been exceeded;
( 3 ) ( i ) The unpaid balance of the contract price will be adequate to cover the anticipated cost of completion, or
( ii ) The contractor has adequate resources to complete the contract; and
( 4 ) There is reason to doubt the adequacy and reliability of the contractor's accounting system and controls and certification.
( c ) Under indefinite-delivery contracts, the contracting officer should administer progress payments made under each individual order as if the order constituted a separate contract, unless agency procedures provide otherwise. When the contract will be administered by an agency other than the awarding agency, the contracting officer shall coordinate with the contract administration office if the awarding agency wants the administration of progress payments to be on a basis other than order-by-order.
[48 FR 42328, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 65 FR 16280, Mar. 27, 2000; 68 FR 13208, Mar. 18, 2003]