alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6959
WILLIAM HAROLD PEOPLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-03-229) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Harold Peoples, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William H. Peoples seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Peoples cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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) (2000). An appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peoples 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### *The*People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric L. Stadd, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered July 17, 1967, convicting defendant of assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the testimony of witnesses Christensen and Neyland was proper (see *People*v. *Dannic,*30 A D 2d 679, and eases cited therein). Insofar as Christensen is concerned, there was sufficient evidence to establish that he would have been interrogated even if defendant had not mentioned his name in his statement to the detective. With respect to .Neyland, the evidence establishes no more *than*that her identity was learned as a result of defendant’s reference to her in his improperly obtained statement to the police. There is absolutely no proof which indicates that, apart from revealing her identity, defendant’s statement was instrumental in inducing her to testify or in affecting the substance of her testimony. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Christ, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1076 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the excise tax 

and income tax credits for the production of biodiesel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2005 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. TALENT) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the excise tax and income tax credits for the production 

of biodiesel.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE EXCISE TAX AND INCOME 

4 TAX CREDITS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF BIO5 DIESEL. 

6 (a) EXCISE TAX CREDIT.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 6426(c)(6) of the 

8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik9 ing ‘‘2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 
2

•S 1076 IS

1 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

2 6427(e)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by striking 

3 ‘‘2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

4 (b) INCOME TAX CREDIT.—Section 40A(e) of the In5 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’.

Æ
§ 801.20 Does this part apply to me? This part and, through this part, pertinent portions of the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180 (see table at 2 CFR 180.100(b)) apply to you if you are a— ( a ) Participant or principal in a “covered transaction” (see Subpart B of 2 CFR part 180 and the definition of “nonprocurement transaction” at 2 CFR 180.970, as supplemented by Subpart B of this part);
( b ) Respondent in a Department of Veterans Affairs debarment or suspension action;
( c ) Department of Veterans Affairs debarment or suspension official; or
( d ) Department of Veterans affairs grants officer, agreements officer, or other official authorized to enter into any type of nonprocurement transaction that is a covered transaction.
Exhibit 10.41

Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Named Executive Officers

Set forth below is a
summary of the compensation paid by MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (the Company) to the executive officers to be named in the Companys 2008 annual proxy statement who are not covered by current employment agreements, as of the
date of filing of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 10-K) and are continuing as an executive officer of the Company in 2008. Each of these executive officers is an employee
at will whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Companys Board of Directors.

Base Salaries. These executive officers receive base salaries in the amounts indicated below:



|                                                                         |  |                        |        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------- | -------
|Name and Position                                                        |  | 2008 Base SalaryAmount
|Mignon Cabrera, Senior Vice President, Human Resources                   |  | $                      | 244,000
|Michael Cheles, Vice President, Information Technology and CIO           |  | $                      | 237,000
|Kenneth H. Hannah, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     |  | $                      | 441,000
|Sean Hunkler, Senior Vice President, Manufacturing                       |  | $                      | 394,000
|John A. Kauffmann, Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing            |  | $                      | 340,000
|Bradley D. Kohn, Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary |  | $                      | 273,000
|Shaker Sadasivam, Senior Vice President, Research and Development        |  | $                      | 348,000

The Compensation Committee adjusts these base salaries from time to time as the Committee deems
appropriate, generally annually.

Incentive Awards. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the Companys
incentive compensation plans as provided in the terms of such plans, including the Companys short term incentive awards plan (which provides for cash incentive awards) and the Companys long-term incentive awards plan (e.g., the
Companys 2001 Equity Incentive Plan). Such plans, and any forms of awards thereunder providing for material terms, are included as exhibits to the Form 10-K as appropriate.

Pension Plan. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the MEMC Pension Plan on the same terms as the Companys other
covered employees. Because they commenced employment after December 31, 2001, Ms. Cabrera, Mr. Cheles, Mr. Hannah, Mr. Hunkler and Mr. Kohn are not covered by the MEMC Pension Plan.

Relocation Payments. From time to time the Company makes payments to executive officers to cover relocation expenses.
§ 1532.1215 What happens if I disagree with the information provided by others to the EPA debarring official on my reinstatement request? ( a ) If your reinstatement request is based on factual information (as opposed to a legal matter or discretionary conclusion) that is different from the information provided by others or otherwise contained in the administrative record, the debarring official will decide whether those facts are genuinely in dispute, and material to making a decision. If so, a fact-finding proceeding will be conducted in accordance with 2 CFR 180.830 through 180.840, and the debarring official will consider the findings when making a decision on your reinstatement request.
( b ) If the basis for your disagreement with the information contained in the administrative record relates to a legal issue or discretionary conclusion, or is not a genuine dispute over a material fact, you will not have a fact-finding proceeding. However, the debarring official will allow you ample opportunity to support your position for the record and present matters in opposition to your continued disqualification. A summary of any information you provide orally, if not already recorded, should also be submitted to the debarring official in writing to assure that it is preserved for the debarring official's consideration and the administrative record.
NICHOLAS JOSHUA GEE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5629

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 14, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela Cox, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Nicholas Joshua Gee, pro se, Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
H. Res. 974

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 25, 2006.

Whereas an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 people are affected 

by myositis in the United States, many of whom remain 

undiagnosed or misdiagnosed; 

Whereas myositis is a general term used to describe swelling 

of the muscles, but the effects of the inflammatory 

myopathies (often referred to as ‘‘myositis’’) are much 

more severe than just inflammation; 

Whereas myositis patients suffer from their immune systems 

attacking their body’s own normal, healthy tissue, resulting in inflammation or swelling; 

Whereas inflammatory myopathies are thought to be autoimmune diseases, such that the body’s immune system, 

which normally fights infections and viruses, does not 

stop fighting once the infection or virus is gone; 

Whereas myositis can cause muscle weakness, and patients 

often live in chronic pain and have long-term health problems that lead to permanent disability; 

Whereas myositis is difficult to diagnose and treatment is 

often delayed, resulting in unnecessary suffering; 

Whereas many patients with treatable forms of myositis often 

have severe long-term disabilities because of failure to diagnose and/or treat the disease correctly; 
2

•HRES 974 EH 

Whereas some myositis patients will die at a much earlier age 

than they would have if they had received the proper 

care, particularly for the children who have permanent 

scarring and deformities due to failure to treat properly; 

Whereas The Myositis Association, the national patient advocacy organization serving the myositis patient community, focuses its efforts on public policy, research funding, 

patient services, and public awareness and education related to developing effective treatments and a cure for 

myositis; 

Whereas a National Myositis Awareness Day would educate 

communities across the Nation about myositis and the 

need for research funding, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatments; and 

Whereas it would be appropriate to observe September 21, 

2006, as National Myositis Awareness Day: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

the goals and ideals of a National Myositis Awareness Day. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### IDA HERMAN, RESPONDENT, v. HOME OWNERS LOAN CORP., APPELLANT.

Submitted October 28, 1938

Decided February 8, 1939.

For the respondents, *Schotland, Harrison & Schotland.*

For the appellant, *James A. Lynch, Jr.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker, in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Walker, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— None.
§ 1401.2 The Office of National Drug Control Policy—organization and functions. ( a ) The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP or Agency) was created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 21 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.,* and reauthorized under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, 21 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* and several appropriations acts. The mission of ONDCP is to coordinate the anti-drug efforts of the various agencies and departments of the Federal Government, to consult with States and localities and assist their anti-drug efforts, and to annually promulgate the National Drug Control Strategy. ONDCP is headed by the Director of National Drug Control Policy.
( b ) ONDCP's Office of External and Legislative Affairs is responsible for providing information to the press and to the general public. If members of the public have general questions about ONDCP, they may email the Office of External and Legislative Affairs at *mediainquiry@ondcp.eop.gov .* This email address should not be used to make FOIA requests. All oral requests for information under FOIA will be rejected.
§ 123.11 Sanitation control procedures. ( a ) *Sanitation SOP.* Each processor should have and implement a written sanitation standard operating procedure (herein referred to as SSOP) or similar document that is specific to each location where fish and fishery products are produced. The SSOP should specify how the processor will meet those sanitation conditions and practices that are to be monitored in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Sanitation monitoring.* Each processor shall monitor the conditions and practices during processing with sufficient frequency to ensure, at a minimum, conformance with those conditions and practices specified in part 110 of this chapter and in subpart B of part 117 of this chapter that are both appropriate to the plant and the food being processed and relate to the following: ( 1 ) Safety of the water that comes into contact with food or food contact surfaces, or is used in the manufacture of ice;
( 2 ) Condition and cleanliness of food contact surfaces, including utensils, gloves, and outer garments;
( 3 ) Prevention of cross-contamination from insanitary objects to food, food packaging material, and other food contact surfaces, including utensils, gloves, and outer garments, and from raw product to cooked product;
( 4 ) Maintenance of hand washing, hand sanitizing, and toilet facilities;
( 5 ) Protection of food, food packaging material, and food contact surfaces from adulteration with lubricants, fuel, pesticides, cleaning compounds, sanitizing agents, condensate, and other chemical, physical, and biological contaminants;
( 6 ) Proper labeling, storage, and use of toxic compounds;
( 7 ) Control of employee health conditions that could result in the microbiological contamination of food, food packaging materials, and food contact surfaces; and
( 8 ) Exclusion of pests from the food plant. The processor shall correct in a timely manner, those conditions and practices that are not met.
( c ) *Sanitation control records.* Each processor shall maintain sanitation control records that, at a minimum, document the monitoring and corrections prescribed by paragraph (b) of this section. These records are subject to the requirements of § 123.9.
( d ) *Relationship to HACCP plan.* Sanitation controls may be included in the HACCP plan, required by § 123.6(b). However, to the extent that they are monitored in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section they need not be included in the HACCP plan, and vice versa.
[60 FR 65197, Dec. 18, 1995, as amended at 80 FR 56167, Sept. 17, 2015]
Exhibit
32.1
 
 **CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Level 8 Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”), I, Anthony C.
Pizi, Chief Executive Officer, and, I, John P. Broderick, Chief Financial and
Operating Officer, each certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      theSecurities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, thefinancial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 By:/s/   Anthony
      C.
      PiziAnthony
      C. PiziChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)March
      17, 2005By:/s/   John
      P.
      BroderickJohn
      P. BroderickChief
      Financial and Operating Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)March
      17, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-1983

CHARLES HOWARD STRAHLER, JR.; PATRICIA ANN

STRAHLER; RUTH V. STRAHLER, Officer,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

WIRTH-STRAHLER & SON, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

versus

COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, Sales and Use Tax

Division; THOMAS J. MACE; ASSISTANT STATE

COMPTROLLER; DEBORAH B. BACHARACH; ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL, Sales and Use Tax Division,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-94-

864-L)

Submitted: February 13, 1996 Decided: March 26, 1996

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Charles Howard Strahler, Jr., Patricia Ann Strahler, Ruth V.

Strahler, Appellants Pro Se. Sheldon Howard Laskin, Assistant

Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's orders dismissing their

notice of removal, and denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion

for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's orders, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm the district court's dismissal of Appellants' notice of

removal, and its denial of Appellants' motion for reconsideration.

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.

AFFIRMED
[Cite as Sherfield v. Unknown, 2010-Ohio-4962.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

MEREDITH SHERFIELD 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

UNKNOWN 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-05200-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On March 25, 2010, this court issued an entry dismissing Accessecurepak 

(OH) as defendant since it is not a state entity. The entry directed the plaintiff to file an 

amended complaint which names a state department, board, office, commission, 

agency, institution, or other state instrumentality as defendant on or before April 23, 

2010, or face dismissal of his case. 

{¶ 2} On April 26, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which again names 

Accessecurepak (OH) as defendant. Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The court shall absorb the court costs of this case. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 
Case No. 2010-05200-AD - 2 - ENTRY

Entry cc: 

Meredith Sherfield, #519-938 

1150 N. Main Street 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 

 

DRB/laa 

Filed 6/14/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 10/11/10
Exhibit 99.1
                            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 Hutton Investors Futures Fund L.P. II
(the  "Partnership")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, David J. Vogel,  President of Smith Barney Futures  Management LLC,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Partnership.


/s/ David J.Vogel
David J. Vogel
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002



<PAGE>
#### § 1.610 Who is eligible to seek recognition?

An accreditation body is eligible to seek recognition by FDA if it can demonstrate that it meets the requirements of §§ 1.611 through 1.615. The accreditation body may use documentation of conformance with International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 17011:2004, supplemented as necessary, in meeting the applicable requirements of this subpart.
#  Certifications Pursuant to Section 104 of the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act Regarding the Safeguards Agreement Between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency 

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Pursuant to section 104 of the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act (Public Law 110-369), I hereby determine and certify that:

1. The Agreement between the Government of India and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities, as approved by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency on August 1, 2008 (the “Safeguards Agreement”), has entered into force; and

2. The Government of India has filed a declaration of facilities pursuant to paragraph 13 of the Safeguards Agreement that is not materially inconsistent with the facilities and schedule described in paragraph 14 of the Separation Plan presented in the national parliament of India on May 11, 2006, taking into account the later initiation of safeguards than was anticipated in the Separation Plan.

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2010-3386

Billing code 4710-10-P
§ 3513.20 Does this part apply to me? This part and, through this part, pertinent portions of the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180 (see table at 2 CFR 180.100(b)) apply to you if you are a— ( a ) Participant or principal in a “covered transaction” (see subpart B of 2 CFR part 180 and the definition of “nonprocurement transaction” at 2 CFR 180.970, as supplemented by subpart B of this part).
( b ) Respondent in an Ex-Im Bank suspension or debarment action.
( c ) Ex-Im Bank debarment or suspension official;
( d ) Ex-Im Bank grants officer, agreements officer, or other official authorized to enter into any type of nonprocurement transaction that is a covered transaction;