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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7444

MICHAEL G. WARWICK,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:17-cv-00023-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael G. Warwick, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael G. Warwick seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 petition 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 Warwick 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 this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### WALKER v CLEVELAND METAL BED CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10301.

Decided March 24, 1930

Patterson, O’Brien & Holland, Cleveland, for Walker.

Howell, Roberts & Duncan, Cleveland, for Bed Co.

*559VICKERY, PJ.

Now it is argued that if the evidence contained in the affidavit had been properly submitted to the trial court, inasmuch as he had directed a verdict because without this evidence the inference was not sufficient to show that the truck was being used on behalf of The Cleveland Metal Bed Company at the time of the injury, that when the product in which presumably The Cleveland Metal Bed Company dealt, was found to be in the truck, it would bring it squarely within the T.abor Ice Cream Company case supra, and that the court must necessarily have submitted this case to the jury under the rule adopted in the Tabor Ice Cream Company case. This would be a potent and we think an unanswerable argument had the plaintiff rested upon inferences alone, but unfortunately for the plaintiff in this action she introduced the officers of the company and their testimony is in the record that on this day of the accident this man was not working for the Company; that he had asked leave to borrow the truck for doing work other than that of The Cleveland Metal Bed Company, and that they had loaned the truck to him and that at the time this accident occurred, although it was their truck and the driver was a man who had been employed by them before and was employed by them after, yet they never employed him on Sunday and at the time this accident occurred he was not in their employ nor was the truck used on behalf of the Company; and that he was not acting within the scope of his employment by them, and so this positive testimony was brought into the record by the counsel for the plaintiff and so the inference which might otherwise have been drawn from the metal bed springs being in the truck was no longer important, for there was positive testimo'fiy to the contrary; that is, that this truck at the time was not being used in and on behalf of the defendant company and that the man driving the truck was not within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident and, therefore, as already stated, the inference to be raised from the affidavit was no longer important and, therefore, the court did not commit any error in overruling the motion for a new trial based on the discovery of new evidence.

We think on the whole record as it comes to us in this case that the court was right in directing a verdict, and there being no error in the record the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Levine, J, concurs.

Sullivan, J, not participating.
Exhibit No. 99


Madison Gas and Electric Company
Exhibit Index to Form 8-K Current Report
December 31, 1996

Madison Gas and Electric Company's Press Release Dated December 31, 1996


Madison Gas and Electric Co. Reports Fourth-Quarter Earnings Impacts

Madison, Wis., Dec. 31, 1996 Madison Gas and Electric Co. (MGE) (NASDAQ: MDSN)
announced today that its fourth-quarter and year-end earnings will be
negatively impacted by several factors. First, extended outage of the Kewaunee
Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) due to the repair of the steam generators will
increase MGE's purchased power and maintenance expenses related to Kewaunee by
approximately $1.5 million in the fourth quarter of 1996. Second, MGE's gas
marketing subsidiary, Great Lakes Energy Corp. (GLENCO), generated significant
income in prior years. Under a sharing arrangement with the regulated utility,
approximately $2.7 million is being returned to MGE's gas utility customers.
This impact will be recorded in the fourth quarter of 1996. Finally, MGE's gas
marketing subsidiaries, GLENCO and American Energy Management (AEM), have
entered into an agreement in principle to form a joint venture with another
gas marketing company. The agreement is expected to be signed and formally
announced within the next 10 days. To properly reflect the current value of
its investment in GLENCO and AEM, and to restructure these activities for the
future, MGE will take a one-time charge in the fourth quarter of 1996 of
approximately $16 million. All of these nonrecurring expenses are before taxes
and were not reflected in the earnings reported as of Sept. 30, 1996.

Kewaunee status

MGE has a 17.8% ownership interest in Kewaunee. Kewaunee was taken out of
service on Sept. 21, 1996, for scheduled refueling and maintenance. The outage
was expected to last five weeks, but inspection of previously repaired steam
generator tubes showed continued degradation of the repaired joints. This
prevents further operation of the Kewaunee plant until the tubes are repaired.
It is uncertain when Kewaunee will return to service. Thus, MGE filed an
application with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin on Dec. 20, 1996,
seeking an interim rate increase to recover incremental power costs and
maintenance expenses due to the loss of Kewaunee.

MGE is a public utility that generates, transmits and distributes electricity
to 120,000 customers in Dane County. The company transports and distributes
natural gas to 103,000 customers in seven South Central and Western Wisconsin
counties. MGE has served the Madison area since 1896.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1178

Geophysical Data from offshore of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, Cat Island to Western Horn Island, Mississippi

----

## List of Figures 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
#### § 794.130 Not more than 25 percent of sales may be to customers engaged in bulk distribution of petroleum products for resale.

As a further requirement for exemption, section 7(b)(3) limits to not more than 25 percent (measured by annual dollar volume) the sales which an enterprise engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products may make to customers who are engaged in the bulk distribution of such products for resale. It should be noted that this limitation does not depend on whether the goods sold by the enterprise to such customers are sold by it for resale, or on whether the goods sold to such customers are petroleum products. It is whether the customer is engaged in selling petroleum products for resale that is controlling. A sale of any goods must be included in this 25 percent limitation so long as it is made to a customer who, as described in section 7(b)(3), can be characterized as one “engaged in the bulk distribution of such products for resale”. It should be also noted that this provision does not in any way limit the sales which the enterprise may make to customers who are not engaged in the bulk distribution of petroleum products for resale. Thus, there is no limitation on the sales the enterprise may make to gasoline service stations which sell such products for resale but do no engage in the “bulk distribution” of the products so sold, or to any other customers except those specified in the exemption in section 7(b)(3). Who is a “customer engaged in the bulk distribution of such products for resale” is discussed in §§ 794.131-794.133.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1




                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Patrick J. Allin, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Patron Systems,
Inc.;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report
         is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
         this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and

6.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 25, 2003

/s/ Patrick J. Allin
---------------------------
Patrick J. Allin
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 15











Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20549



Commissioners:



We are aware that our report dated July 27, 2006 on our review of interim financial statements of LCNB Corp. and Subsidiaries (the "Company"), as of and for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 and 2005 and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended, is incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement of the Company on Form S-8, filed on March 13, 2003.  Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.







/s/ J.D. Cloud & Co. L.L.P.



J.D. Cloud & Co. L.L.P.





Cincinnati, Ohio

July 27, 2006
#### § 779.401 Statutory provision.

Section 13(a)(1) of the Act provides that the provisions of sections 6 and 7 shall not apply with respect to:

Any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity (including any employee employed in the capacity of academic administrative personnel or teacher in elementary or secondary schools), or in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited from time to time by regulations of the Secretary, subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, except that an employee of a retail or service establishment shall not be excluded from the definition of employee employed in a bona fide executive or administrative capacity because of the number of hours in his workweek which he devotes to activities not directly or closely related to the performance of executive or administrative activities, if less than 40 per centum of his hours worked in the workweek are devoted to such activities).
Exhibit 21  Subsidiaries of MGE Energy, Inc.   As of December 31, 2006, the company held the following subsidiaries (all Wisconsin corporations):  • Central Wisconsin Development Corporation - assists new and expanding businesses throughout central Wisconsin by participating in planning, financing, property acquisition, joint ventures and associated activities.  • Madison Gas and Electric Company - a regulated utility that generates and distributes electricity to nearly 135,000 customers in Dane County, Wisconsin, and purchases and distributes natural gas to more than 138,000 customers in seven Wisconsin counties.  • MAGAEL, LLC - holds title to property acquired by the company for future utility plant expansion and nonutility property.  • MGE Construct LLC - provides construction services for building new generation to meet the needs of MGE customers.  • MGE Power LLC - owns real estate and new generating assets required to meet MGE's growing customer demand.  • MGE Power West Campus, LLC - owns a controlling interest in the electric generating assets related to the West Campus Cogeneration Facility (WCCF). MGE Power West Campus is a wholly owned subsidiary of MGE Power. MGE Power West Campus leases their share of these assets to Madison Gas and Electric Company through a long-term lease agreement.  • MGE Power Elm Road, LLC - has an 8.33% undivided ownership interest in two coal-fired generating plants being constructed in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. MGE Power Elm Road is a wholly owned subsidiary of MGE Power. MGE Power Elm Road will lease their share of the coal-fired generating plant to Madison Gas and Electric Company through a long-term lease agreement.  • MGE Transco Investment, LLC - invests in companies engaged in the business of providing electric transmission services, such as ATC.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit (21)

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE MEAD CORPORATION*

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                          State of Jurisdiction
Name                                         of Incorporation
----                                      ---------------------
<S>                                       <C> 
Escanaba Paper Company                          Michigan
Forest Kraft Company                            Delaware
MCB Woodlands and Services, Inc.                Alabama
Mead Coated Board, Inc.                         Delaware
Mead Foreign Holdings, Inc.                     Ohio
Mead Oxford Corporation                         Delaware
</TABLE> 


--------------

*    The names of additional subsidiaries have been omitted because the unnamed
     subsidiaries, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not
     constitute a significant subsidiary.  Subsidiaries which are consolidated
     into the above-listed subsidiaries are also omitted.
P. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 117 ) IV-C-8

3 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:57AM Sheet 117 of 232^ £ 0 ST o-4> N T SS

> P. 2 

## lR-^'7'0lt

|

'" C PROt«- & UNITE D STATES ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO

NAGENC

Y / WASHINGTON , D.C
. 2046

0 

### f^I S 2 4 

### )9£ ?

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N I I Honorabl e Broc k Adam s Unite d State s Senat e Washington , D . C . 2051 0 Dea r Senato r Adams : Thi s i n respons e t o you r February11 , 1988 , lette r relaying the concern s o f Mr . WilliamDeibe l regarding EPA' s regulatory

K6Q i JU^ L f UCVLX^ U L J \^U^C O ~J -k. M I I ^ J . A \J

« * / ^A£JJL«J.Llh J Wil l * J V S V W J. M . rational e fo r proposing onboar d controls . I f yo u woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f ou r analysis , pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlso n o f the Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc ho f the Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivision , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , Ann Arbor , M I 4810 5 (FT S 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270) . Thank yo u fo r you r letter . W e wil l plac e the lette r fro m Mr . Deibe l in ou r publi c docke t an d full yconside r hi s comment s in the nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking process . Sincerel yyours , "••• - OO r.A B Y Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosur e cc : Docke t A-87-1 1
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
iVillage Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2002, the undersigned, Douglas
W. McCormick, Chief Executive Officer of iVillage Inc., hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1)      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
                  September 30, 2002 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 such Quarterly Report on Form
                  10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 fairly presents,
                  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                  of operations of iVillage Inc.


November 14, 2002                       /s/ Douglas W. McCormick
-------------------------               -----------------------------------
Date                                    Douglas W. McCormick
                                        Chief Executive Officer
§ 553.27 Payments for unused compensatory time. ( a ) Payments for accrued compensatory time earned after April 14, 1986, may be made at any time and shall be paid at the regular rate earned by the employee at the time the employee receives such payment.
( b ) Upon termination of employment, an employee shall be paid for unused compensatory time earned after April 14, 1986, at a rate of compensation not less than— ( 1 ) The average regular rate received by such employee during the last 3 years of the employee's employment, or
( 2 ) The final regular rate received by such employee, whichever is higher.
( c ) The phrase *last 3 years of employment* means the 3-year period immediately prior to termination. Where an employee's last 3 years of employment are not continuous because of a break in service, the period of employment after the break in service will be treated as new employment. However, such a break in service must have been intended to be permanent and any accrued compensatory time earned after April 14, 1986, must have been cashed out at the time of initial separation. Where the final period of employment is less than 3 years, the average rate still must be calculated based on the rate(s) in effect during such period.
( d ) The term “regular rate” is defined in 29 CFR 778.108. As indicated in § 778.109, the regular rate is an hourly rate, although the FLSA does not require employers to compensate employees on an hourly basis.
[52 FR 2032, Jan. 16, 1987; 52 FR 2648, Jan. 23, 1987]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10817 Summary Calendar

ELBERT SILAS GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER, Contractor for Med-Dental Care for Middleton Unit; JOHN MIDDLETON UNIT, Health Administrator; No First Name COLLIER, DDS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:97-CV-042-BA

- - - - - - - - - - February 27, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Elbert Silas Green, a Texas prisoner (# 764049), appeals from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint without prejudice based on his failure to comply with a March 6, 1997, district court order directing him to file a copy of his inmate trust account statement in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), as amended by the Prison Litigation ReformNo. 97-10817 - 2 - Act (“PLRA”). The magistrate judge did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Green’s complaint, as the burden of ensuring that the account statement was produced fell on Green. See Long v. Simmons , 77 F.3d 878, 879 (5th Cir. 1996); Morrow v. Collins , 111 F.3d 374, 375 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
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 the Annual Report of LSB Industries, Inc. (“LSB”), on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, Tony M. Shelby,
Executive Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of LSB, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, to §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.














/s/ Tony M. Shelby


Tony M.
Shelby


Executive
Vice President of Finance


and Chief
Financial Officer








March 8,
2010








This
certification is furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for
purpose of 18 U.S.C. §1350 subject to the knowledge standard contained therein
and not for any other purpose.