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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1969

THE 16TH ST. DR., N.W. LAND HOLDERS AND/OR ECP TRUST, Plaintiff – Appellant,

EDITH C. PETERSON, Trustee – Appellant,

v. THE CITY OF HICKORY CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IN N.C. 28601; CITY OF HICKORY; CITY OF HICKORY PLANNING BOARD; MICHAEL E. CASH, Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00074-RLV-DLH)

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edith C. Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley Philip Kline, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Edith C. Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s order that Peterson, a non-attorney, retain counsel to represent ECP Trust. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Peterson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny as moot Peterson’s motion requesting that this court deny her counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny Peterson’s motion for time to locate new counsel, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Brown, Respondent, against Boon & Sullivan et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

(Submitted May 27, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*William B. Davis*and *E. C. Sherwood*for appellants.

*Cornelius J. Carey, Jr.,*for claimant-respondent.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ,; O’Brien, J., taking no part.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YOUNGSOO S. LEE, Pla intiff - Appe lla nt, v. B AC HOM E LOANS SER VIC ING, LP; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-56102 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-05136-R -AGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M a nue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, T A L L M A N , a n d N G U Y E N , C i r c u i t J

u d g e s . Y o u n g s o o S . L e e a

p p e a l s p r o s e f

r o m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r d i s m

i s s i n g h i s a c t i o n a r i s i n g f r o m f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . W e h a

v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u

n d e r 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion the de nia l of a m otion brought 

# FIL ED JUL 7 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b). Sc h. Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

nty ., Or. v . AC

andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th C ir. 1993). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Le e ’ s Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b) m otion pre d ic a te d on ne wly disc ove re d e vide nc e be c a use Le e fa i le d to e sta blish grounds for such re l ie f. Se e id. a t 1263 (se tting forth grounds for re c o nside ra tion unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b)). Le e ’ s c onte ntions re ga

rding the Se c uritie s Ac t of 1933 a re unpe rsua sive . AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 5 6 1 0 2 2
[Civ. No. 1956.

First Appellate District.

January 12, 1917.]

#### J. D. PASMORE, Appellant, v. PACIFIC CARBON MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al., Defendants; CHARLES L. KIEWERT COMPANY, Respondent.

Appeal Dismissed, the litigation having been settled.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County. A. B. McKenzie, Judge.

Elmer E. Nichols, Byrne & Lamson, and Ralph H. Wight, for Appellant.

H. W. Hutton, and F. E. Boland, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

It being conceded by the appellant and respondent at the oral argument that this is a moot case, all that the plaintiff demanded by his complaint having been accomplished, and the litigation between the parties having been practically settled, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL E. MCCONNELL 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 WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael E. McConnell, 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 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: March 12, 2004



|                                                                                  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/    MICHAEL E. MCCONNELL                                                      
|Michael E. McConnell Senior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4332 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4332

To provide for the use of additional funds for transportation projects 
  that were affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2020

  Ms. McSally introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the use of additional funds for transportation projects 
  that were affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION GRANTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of Transportation shall use any amounts made available to the 
Secretary for grant programs for covered projects, and not otherwise 
obligated, to provide additional funds to covered projects.
    (b) Amount.--In providing additional funds for a covered project 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide an amount equal to 
not less than 10 percent of the total project costs.
    (c) Federal Share.--Amounts made available for a covered project 
under subsection (a) shall not be counted toward the Federal share of 
the project.
    (d) Modifications to Agreements.--The Secretary of Transportation 
shall modify a grant agreement for a covered project as necessary to 
provide additional funds under subsection (a) in accordance with the 
amount determined under subsection (b).
    (e) Definition of Covered Project.--In this section, the term 
``covered project'' means a highway project, a public transportation 
project, a rural transportation project, or a tribal transportation 
project that--
            (1) during the period beginning on January 1, 2017, and 
        ending on the date of enactment of this Act--
                    (A) has been awarded a grant under a competitive 
                grant program of the Secretary of Transportation; or
                    (B) in the case of a new fixed guideway capital 
                project proposed to be carried out using a grant under 
                section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, advanced 
                to the engineering phase under subsection (g) of that 
                section; and
            (2) requires additional funding to complete the project due 
        to the effects of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 221
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 221.200 Content and explanation of abbreviations, reference marks and symbols. ( a ) *Content.* The format to be used for any electronic tariff must be that agreed to in advance as provided for in § 221.180, and must include those data elements set forth in § 221.202. Those portions that are filed in paper form shall comply in all respects with part 221, subparts A through Q.
( b ) *Explanation of abbreviations, reference marks and symbols.* Abbreviations, reference marks and symbols which are used in the tariff shall be explained in each tariff. ( 1 ) The following symbols shall be used: R—Reduction I—Increase N—New Matter X—Canceled Matter C—Change in Footnotes, Routings, Rules or Zones E—Denotes change in Effective Date only.
( 2 ) Other symbols may be used only when an explanation is provided in each tariff and such symbols are consistent throughout all the electronically filed tariffs from that time forward.
#### § 29.239 Spray characteristics.

If certification for water operation is requested, no spray characteristics during taxiing, takeoff, or landing may obscure the vision of the pilot or damage the rotors, propellers, or other parts of the rotorcraft.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7447

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRYANT ROGER CAIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-93-277-WMN, CA-98-2297-WMN) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 30, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryant Roger Cain, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Bryant Roger Cain seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cain , Nos. CR-93-277- WMN; CA-98-2297-WMN (D. Md. Aug. 21, 1998). 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
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
I N R E
GE OR GE R. D I PP
REL ATOR § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 02 76 -C V

An Or i gi n al P ro ce ed i n g in Mandamus

MEMORAN DUM OP INION ON P ETIT ION F OR WRIT OF M ANDAM US Relator, Ge org e R. Dipp, asks this Court to is sue a writ of mandamus a g ainst the Honora ble Carlos Villa, Judge of the County

Court at L aw No. 5 of

El Paso County . Relator has also filed a motion see king e merg ency relief from the tria l court’s orde r of August 11, 2008
canc eling Relator’s notice of lis pendens . In order to be entitled to mandamus re lief, a r elator
mus t me e t tw o r e qu ir e me nts . F ir st, the re lator mus t sh owthat th e tr ia l c ourt c le arl y a bu se d it s discretion. In re Prude ntial Insurance Company of Ame rica , 148 S.W .3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the r elator must demonstrate he has no a dequate reme dy by appea l. Id. at 135-36. B ased on the re cord be fore us, we a re una ble to conclude that Relator is entitled to mandamus re lief. Acc ording ly , we de ny

Relator’s motion for tempor ary relief and his petition for writ of mandamus. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 52.8(a), 52.10.
September 16, 2008 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Lewis J. Wells, Appellant.

(Argued October 21, 1936;

decided December 1, 1936.)

*Joseph P. Murphy*and *Charles A. Murphy*for appellant.

*216
      *Andrew J. Hanmer, District Attorney (Allan L. Gurley*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree for causing the death of Joseph Jessmer. The verdict is not against the weight of evidence.

Lida Jessmer, wife of the deceased, was, at the time of the trial, confined in jail under an indictment for murder in the first degree in relation to the death of her husband. Counsel for defendant made a motion for an order directing the Sheriff to produce her so that she might be sworn as a witness in his behalf. The trial court denied the motion and stated these reasons: *“*The only purpose in bringing this person in would be as a witness. Her counsel objects on the ground that it might incriminate her. He objects to her being a witness or being sworn or answering questions. The court feels that she should not be subjected to an examination under the circumstances, and bringing her in would be an empty formality.”

This ruling was erroneous. In all criminal prosecutions the accused has a right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. (Civil Rights Law, § 12; Cons. Laws, ch. 6.) Notwithstanding the strong evidence against defendant and the possibility or even a probability that Mrs. Jessmer would refuse to answer questions if sworn as a witness, we are of the opinion that the error *217in refusing to order her to be produced in court is not such a technical error as does not affect defendant’s substantial rights. (Code Grim. Proc. § 542.)

The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Lehman, Crouch, Loughran and Finch JJ., concur; Crane, Oh. J., O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., dissent and vote for affirmance under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Judgment of conviction reversed, etc.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1047 PLATE 1

83°15" (LENOX? q esheyes

RA eee —_ . =— 7 or a : SSS 7 5 _ —— oT - 37°52'30"
37*5g80 lf ee fe \ \S —)) )(( ~ eles aye 34 E : ENN SX a) y 2 ( is Tis As TINY ’
1 y wc \ N ( a LS Y 2 Y, — r (( . J S S £ EME = Sas im!
Np as CNV 7 pA . J. SU / No 3 : jy ( \ oF Zz) I Sa Z f

EXPLANATION

{

Recent
NARY

————)

Alluvium

VANIAN

ae)

PENNSYL- QUATER-

Breathitt formation

Fault, approximately located
U, upthrown side; D, downthrown side

= S———s80 —
Structure contours drawn on Fire Clay coal bed
Contours dashed where approximate or
projected from other key beds. Con-
trol by aneroid barometer and hand
level. Contour interval 20 feet. Datum
is mean sea level

~~
Location and number of measured section
shown on plate:2

ee
Outerop line of Sebastian coal bed

i—-————
Outerop line of Nickell coal bed

n—————

Outerop line of Index coal bed

re
Outerop line of Colvin coal bed

me
Outerop line of Magoffin beds of Morse

——_— ——
Outcrop line of Hamlin(?) coal bed

he oe

Outerop line of Fire Clay coal bed

ke———— —

Outerop line of fossiliferous zone
in Kendrick shale of Jillson

Cs ener

Outerop line of Cannel City coal bed

tc—— —

Outcrop line of Tom Cooper coal bed

Lines of probable outcrop dashed

Az where approximately located,
5 x dotted where concealed
g ai
wy
5 3 x48
& s
g e Location and number of coal section
a shown on plate 3
x
2
x

Location of outcrop, prospect, or domestic
opening in a coal bed or outerop
of other key beds

R
Coal mine

R
Abandoned coal mine

=, USSG 1 (C
Vj \ 29 (1 S

MAGNETIC NORTH.
TRUE NORTH

Vip
YW =x

OT AST 14
EN

~ g ~ | S PP BX S Ss Re NS Cc APPROXIMATE MEAN
1), i 4 vit f x () )) \ AY ON Gy = \\ ) if J \G .. DECLINATION 1951
NA "J ZF os A CB q \ A

QO y y

EES

——— 37°45"
83°07'30"
Base from U.S. Geological Survey map of M R-3913

0 t —-
White Oak quadrangle, 1951 GEOLOG WHITE OAK QUADRANGLE, Geology by W. L. Adkison
MAGOFFIN AND MORGAN COUNTIES, KENTUCKY

Scale 1:24,000
i 0 1 Mile

(SEITZ) a 1

Contour interval 20 feet
Datum is mean sea level
#### In the Matter of the Grade Crossing of Lehigh Valley Railroad over Rush-Henrietta County Highway in Monroe County. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant; Public Service Commission et al., Respondents.

(Submitted November 18, 1936;

decided December 4, 1936.)

*Herbert W. Smith*for appellant.

*Gay H. Brown*and *Sherman C. Ward*for Public Service Commission, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs. Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
**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:
In connection with this Quarterly Report of SpectraSite, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Mark A. Slaven, as ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for the purposes of18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.   Date: November 3, 2004 /s/ Mark A. Slaven   Mark A. Slaven Chief Financial Officer
65
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          19,185
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,647
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,363)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,068
<PP&E>                                          13,248
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,276)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 240,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,352
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   240,678
<SALES>                                          6,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,600
<CGS>                                            7,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,236
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,065
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,899)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,899)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (845)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,744)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.50)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1.3

Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request for
confidential treatment filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
omissions have been indicated by asterisks ("*****"), and the omitted text has
been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

[Satellite Services Inc. Logo]     July 18, 1997           MAILING ADDRESS:
                                                         Post Office Box 5630
                                                         Denver, CO 80217-5630
                                                            (303) 267-5500

Mr. Steve Saril, President                            VIA FACSIMILE
Spice Networks
536 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012

Re:  Spice and Adam & Eve

Dear Steve:

      This letter  confirms our agreement  that effective June 1, 1997, the Fees
payable for PPV Cable  Subscribers for Spice and Adam & Eve shall be the greater
of: (1) ***** of the Gross receipts attributable to such PPV buys; or (2) *****.
This letter  agreement  shall remain in effect for the Term so long as there are
no less than ***** million Addressable Subscribers in Systems. Capitalized terms
in this letter  agreement  shall have the same meaning as the definition of such
terms in the  Affiliation  Agreement,  as amended,  dated as of November 1, 1992
between Spice, Inc., and Satellite Services, Inc.

      If this letter  accurately  sets forth our  agreement,  please sign in the
space indicated below and return it to me.

                                            Satellite Services, Inc.
                                            By:   /s/ J. Hinderg
                                            Name: J. Hinderg, Jr.
                                            Title:   President

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

By:     /s/ Steve Saril
Name:   Steve Saril
Title:  President

cc: James Cofer
Exhibit 21.0



Subsidiaries of Pulaski Financial Corp.



Registrant



Pulaski Financial Corp.



|                                    |  |                         |   |  |                                       
|----------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | - |  | --------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries (1)                    |  | Percentage of Ownership |   |  | Jurisdiction or State of Incorporation
|Pulaski Bank                        |  | 100                     | % |  | United States                         
|Pulaski Service Corporation (2)     |  | 100                     | % |  | Missouri                              
|Pulaski Financial Statutory Trust I |  | 100                     | % |  | Connecticut                           

---

|(1) | The operations of the subsidiaries of the Registrant are included in the Registrants Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the Annual Report to Stockholders.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Wholly-owned by Pulaski Bank.
|--- | -----------------------------