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

**No. 16**  **- 7511** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. SANTONIO LENORD MINUS, a/k/a Cheese, a/k/a Baldhead, a/k/a B.G., a/k/a Santonio Minus , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Michael F. Urbanski , District Judge. ( 5:12

- cr - 00014

- MFU

- RSB

- 5; 5:15

- cv - 80802

- MFU

RSB )

Submitted : March 30 , 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Santonio Lenord Minus, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia; Grays on A. Hoffman, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrisonburg, Virginia; Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for App ellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Santonio Lenord Minus seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit just ice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district 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 must 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 Minus has 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 legal4 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and ar gument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Mr. Warren Paschal Manager of Environmental Compliance

General Shale Brick

1600 Colon Road Sanford, North Carolina 27330

Dear Mr. Paschal:

Thank you for reviewing and commenting on the trip report for the Ju ly 29, 2008 visit to the General Shale Brick facility in Moncure, No rth Carolina, by representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and RTI International (RTI). Your comments have been incorporated in the enclosed final trip re port. As you did not designate any information in the trip report as confidential, EPA will consider the trip report to be non-confidential. Also, unless we hear from you by January 21, 2009 with corrections, EPA will consider the enclosed report to be final.

If you have any questions or additional co mments, please contact Mr. Jeff Telander of EPA at (919) 541-5427 or Mr. Ri ck Marinshaw of RTI at ( 919) 316-3735. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Steve Fruh, Group Leader Metals and Minerals Group Sector Policies and Programs Division

Enclosure
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Investors Bancorp, 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;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;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant and 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 registrant, 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 registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: February 14, 2006
    /s/ Robert M. CashillRobert M. CashillPresident and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**MORLEX,
      INC.**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned hereby certifies that, to my knowledge, the annual report of Morlex,
      Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31,
      2007 (the “Annual Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and
      that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Annual Report or
“filed” for any purpose whatsoever.





Date:
                October 2, 2008
            /s/
                Richard J. BermanRichard
                J. BermanChief
                Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)
Third Amendment to Rights Agreement, dated as of April 30, 2009



 Exhibit 4.1 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT 
 THIRD AMENDMENT, dated as of April 30, 2009
(“Third Amendment”), to Rights Agreement, dated as of May 23, 2006, as amended by that First Amendment to Rights Agreement, dated December 13, 2007 and that Second Amendment to Rights Agreement, dated
February 12, 2009 (the “Rights Agreement”), between Design Within Reach, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC a New York limited
liability trust company, as Rights Agent (the “Rights Agent”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Rights Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent previously entered into the Rights Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26 of the Rights Agreement, the Company and the Rights Agent may from time to time supplement or amend any provision of
the Rights Agreement in accordance with the terms of such Section 26. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and
mutual agreements set forth in this Third Amendment, the parties hereby amend the Rights Agreement as follows: 
 1. The two references to
“April 30, 2009” in Section 1.1 of the Rights Agreement are hereby modified, amended and replaced with “July 4, 2009.” 
 2. The reference to “April 30, 2009” in Section 1.3 of the Rights Agreement is hereby modified, amended and replaced with “July 4, 2009.” 
 3. This Third Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof and, except as expressly set forth herein, the Rights Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect and be otherwise unaffected hereby. 
 4. This Third Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which,
when executed, shall be deemed to be an original and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same document. 
 5. If any
term, provision, covenant or restriction of this Third Amendment is held by a court of competent jurisdiction or other authority to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms, provisions, covenants and restrictions of this Third
Amendment shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated. 
 6. This Third Amendment shall be
deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of Delaware and for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of such State applicable to contracts to be made and performed entirely within such State.

 [REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Third Amendment as of the date first written above.

  

			
	DESIGN WITHIN REACH, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Ray Brunner
		 	Name: Ray Brunner
		 	Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
	
	AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Herbert J. Lemmer
		 	Name: Herbert J. Lemmer
		 	Title: Vice President


  

 2
#### § 2500.014 Eligibility requirements.

Program-specific eligibility requirements appear in the subpart applicable to each program and in the corresponding RFPs.
```

[106th Congress Public Law 204]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ204.106]

Public Law 106-204
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in New 
  York City, New York, as the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States 
           Courthouse''. <<NOTE: May 23, 2000 -  [S. 2370]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED STATES 
            COURTHOUSE.

    The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in New York City, 
New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan United States Courthouse.

    Approved May 23, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2370:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            May 4, considered and passed Senate.
            May 15, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RODNEY RAMIREZ,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00076

- CR

Appeal from

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 59793 (900D08595))

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15 TH DAY OF MAY , 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50795

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAVIER RODRIGUEZ-DURAN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-1022-ALL

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Javier Rodriguez-Duran

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 2008 WL 59441 (Jan.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50795

2

7, 2008) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Sino Gas International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)  The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q (“Report”) for the fiscal period ended March 31, 2011 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.





Date: May 16, 2011





/s/ Yuchuan LiuYuchuan LiuChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Yugang ZhangYugang ZhangChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00417-CV

Michael T. Paul, Appellant

v.

Texas Disbursement Unit, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. 2015CVA0207, HONORABLE RANDAL C. GRAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Michael T. Paul filed suit against appellee Texas Disbursement Unit,

seeking to recover funds garnished from his social security benefits for unpaid child support. He

filed an affidavit of indigence, and on June 15, 2015, the trial court clerk’s office sent him notice that

the “Order on your Affidavit of Indigency was denied by the Judge,” telling him that to proceed, he

would have to pay filing fees and citation and service fees. On June 21, Paul filed a notice of 1

nonsuit, stating he intended to refile in federal court. On June 29, the trial court signed an Order of

Non-Suit, stating that Paul’s claims were dismissed without prejudice. On July 1, Paul filed a notice

of appeal.

On August 4, we sent Paul a letter explaining that his notice of nonsuit vitiated

the trial court’s preceding interlocutory orders, including any orders related to his assertion of

 The clerk’s record does not contain any orders related to Paul’s assertion of indigence.

1
indigence, and asking him to explain what he sought to appeal so that we could determine whether

we could properly exercise jurisdiction over his complaints. See Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado,

892 S.W.2d 853, 854-55 (Tex. 1995) (plaintiff may nonsuit up until all evidence other than rebuttal

evidence is introduced, and nonsuit “may have the effect of vitiating earlier interlocutory

orders”; decisions on merits, such as summary judgment, are not vitiated); Legere v. Legere,

No. 03-12-00046-CV, 2013 WL 692450, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 22, 2013, no pet.) (mem.

op.) (nonsuit terminated trial court’s temporary orders).

To date, Paul has not responded to our communication. We therefore dismiss the

suit for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: August 27, 2015

2
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2461 

To amend the Small Business Act to make permanent the Small Loan 

Advantage program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2013 

Ms. HAHN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to make permanent the 

Small Loan Advantage program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SBA Loan Paperwork 

5 Reduction Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SMALL LOAN ADVANTAGE PROGRAM. 

7 Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 636(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(36) SMALL LOAN ADVANTAGE.— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2461 IH

1 ‘‘(A) PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT.—The 

2 Administrator shall carry out a Small Loan Ad3 vantage program in accordance with this para4 graph. 

5 ‘‘(B) ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM.—Ex6 cept as otherwise provided under this para7 graph, the Administrator shall carry out the 

8 Small Loan Advantage program in the same 

9 manner as the Small Loan Advantage loan ini10 tiative of the Administration— 

11 ‘‘(i) under which lenders were eligible 

12 to begin submitting loans on February 15, 

13 2011; and 

14 ‘‘(ii) as in effect on June 1, 2013. 

15 ‘‘(C) NONAPPLICABILITY OF PILOT PRO16 GRAM LIMITATIONS.—No limitation under para17 graph (25)(A) applies to the Small Loan Ad18 vantage program under this paragraph. 

19 ‘‘(D) INCREASED FLEXIBILITY.—The Ad20 ministrator is authorized to increase the pro21 gram’s maximum loan amount, to reduce the 

22 program’s fees, and to further streamline the 

23 program’s loan approval process if the AdminisVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:57 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2461.IH H2461

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2461 IH

1 trator determines that such adjustments would 

2 be fair and appropriate.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### George Signor, Respondent, v City of Rochester et al., Appellants.

— Order reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment because of plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate the existence of any triable issue of fact (CPLR 3212). Plaintiff, a retired police officer of the City of Rochester, alleges in an unverified complaint that he suffered “heart attacks during the performance of his duties or as a result of the performance of his duties” with the police department and claims that he is entitled to full pay and reimbursement of all medical expenses pursuant to section 207-c of the General Municipal Law. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was accompanied by proof that plaintiff voluntarily retired under an “ordinary disability retirement” approved by the New York State Comptroller. Also attached to defendant’s motion is an affidavit of a physician who examined plaintiff and concluded that his heart disease was not related to his employment “either by way of causation, precipitation, or aggravation”. Plaintiff submitted no proof in opposition to defendant’s motion. To defeat a motion for summary judgment “plaintiff must establish the existence of material facts of sufficient import to create a triable issue” *(Shaw v Time-Life Records,*38 NY2d 201, 207). The bare allegations contained in his complaint are insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact *(Shaw v Time-Life Records, supra,*p 207). Since the facts set forth by the defendant are not controverted, those facts may be deemed to be admitted *(Kuehne & Nagel v Baiden,*36 NY2d 539, 544). All concur, except Callahan, J., who dissents and votes to affirm in the following memorandum.

Callahan, J.

(dissenting). Plaintiff’s letter of retirement from the Rochester Police Department dated December 12, 1974, effective as of November 17, 1974, states, “This is due to the fact of my disability and that the New York State Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement System will not grant another 30 day extension regarding my retirement. This letter is being signed without prejudice as to the determination made regarding my pension.” This dramatically demonstrates that the type and form of retirement taken at the time was under stress and personal pressures then existent. The documents and arguments presented at Special Term adequately raise triable issues of fact. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court — sum*838mary judgment.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.
§ 32.400 Samples of grease mohair grades; method of obtaining. Samples certified as representative of the official standards of the United States for grades of grease mohair will be furnished as follows, subject to other conditions of this section, upon filing of an approved application and prepayment of the costs thereof as fixed in § 32.401. The certification will be issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and will be signed by the Director of the Livestock Division or other duly authorized official. ( a ) Samples representative of each of the standard grades of grease mohair: ( 1 ) *Complete set.* Ten certified samples of grease mohair, grades 40s through 18s.
( 2 ) *Individual sample.* Individual certified samples of grease mohair.
( b ) Each application for standard samples of grease mohair shall be upon an application form furnished or approved by the Consumer and Marketing Service, shall be signed by the applicant, and shall be accompanied by certified check, draft, post office money order, or express money order, payable to the “Agricultural Marketing Service,” in an amount to cover the cost of the samples requested, and shall incorporate the following agreement. ( 1 ) That no samples representative of the official grease mohair standards shall be considered or used as representing such standards after cancellation in accordance with this section.
( 2 ) That the said standard samples shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary or by any duly authorized officer or agent of the Department of Agriculture during usual business hours of the person having custody of the samples.
( 3 ) That the certificate covering any of the samples representative of the standards may be revoked and canceled by the Director of the Livestock Division, if it is found upon such inspection that the said samples are not representative of the official standards.
Note to § 32.400 :
A certified sample consists of grease mohair randomly selected from a bulk sample. The measured average and standard deviation of fiber diameter of bulk sample were within the limits corresponding to the grade of the standard sample as set forth in the voluntary U.S. grade standards. Copies of the voluntary U.S. grade standards can be obtained from Director, Livestock and Seed Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456.