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

No. 17
- 7601

DARRYL A. MCPHAUL , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. ERIK A. HOOKS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 3:17

- cv - 00333

- FDW )

Submitted : May 17, 2018 Decided: May 18, 2018

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Darryl A. McPhaul , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darryl A. McPhaul seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petit ion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 rig ht.” 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 deba table, 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 McPhaul has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a cer tificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 d ecisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          19,601
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,699
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,846
<INVENTORY>                                      1,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,084
<PP&E>                                           6,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,490
<BONDS>                                          7,256
<COMMON>                                            76
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        506
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,262
<SALES>                                          7,291
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,321
<CGS>                                            4,935
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   450
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 771
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,952
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,661
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,661
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
        

</TABLE>
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the second quarter of
fiscal year 2008 ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:
February 8, 2008
    
    /s/ Kevin R. KyserKevin R. Kyser,Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
 of Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6163 

HENRY CLIFFORD BYRD, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GARY MILLER, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-00201-FWB)

Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 1, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd 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
Editorial Note on Part 149
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 149.303 What survival craft and rescue boats may be used on a manned deepwater port? ( a ) Each survival craft on a manned deepwater port must be one of the following: ( 1 ) A lifeboat meeting the requirements of § 149.306 of this part; or
( 2 ) A liferaft meeting the requirements of § 149.308 of this part.
( b ) Each rescue boat on a manned deepwater port must be a rescue boat meeting the requirements of § 149.314 of this part.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39179, July 1, 2013]
[671 NE2d 1266, 648 NYS2d 869]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norma Jean Robinson, Appellant.

Decided September 10, 1996

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Stephen J. Pittari,*White Plains, and *Jacqueline F. Oliva*for appellant.

*Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney*of Westchester County, White Plains *(Maryanne Luciano*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted, as an accomplice, of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. On her appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant contended, among other things, that the trial court’s instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt impermissibly shifted the burden of proof. The majority of the Appellate Division held that this contention was unpreserved (218 AD2d 673, 674). We agree, *1002because to frame and preserve a question of law reviewable by this Court, an objection or exception must be made with sufficient specificity at the trial, when the nisi prius court has an opportunity to consider and deal with the asserted error (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Robinson,*36 NY2d 224). That was not done here.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHAO LI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Jr., Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-70015

Agency No. A089-977-003

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 24, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Chao Li, a native and a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-70015

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. 

Among other things, the agency found Li not credible based on the lack of 

detail in Li’s testimony, the inconsistencies with his declaration, and the omission 

from his declaration of a month-long hospital stay. Substantial evidence supports 

the adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility 

determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Thus, we 

deny the petition for review as to Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. 

See id. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Li’s CAT claim 

because it is based on the same testimony found not credible, and he does not point 

to any other evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he 

would be tortured if returned to China. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 

1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). We reject Li’s contentions that that the agency erred in 

its analysis of his CAT claim and that the agency failed to consider record 

evidence. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION UNDERSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

I, Daniel M. Rood,  theChief Financial Officer of TMSF Holdings, Inc., certify that: 

1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended          December 31, 2006 of TMSF Holdings, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a 15(e)and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have: 

     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

     a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation ; and 

     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

/s/ Daniel M. Rood     Daniel M. Rood Chief Financial OfficerMay 2, 2007
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 31, 2021

No. 04-21-00344-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.A.E., ET AL, CHILDREN,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019PA01868

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an appeal of an order terminating parental rights as to three children. The clerk’s 

record, which was filed on August 30, 2021, contains an order of termination that is styled as an 

“interlocutory” order. The order terminates appellant’s parental rights to his two children and 

terminates the mother’s rights to all three children. However, the order grants the “not ready” 

announcement by the father of the third child and does not terminate his parental rights. 

Accordingly, the order is not a final judgment that disposes of all parties and all claims. See 

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The clerk’s record does not 

contain a severance order that would make the otherwise interlocutory order against appellant 

final for the purposes of appeal. See In re T.T.F., 331 S.W.3d 461, 477 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2010, no pet.) (“A severance splits a single suit into two or more independent actions, each 

action resulting in an appealable final judgment.”); see also In re T.J.H., No. 13-06-00407-CV, 

2009 WL 2624114, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 26, 2009, pet. denied) 

(mem. op.) (holding order terminating parental rights of one parent was interlocutory until trial 

court signed a second order terminating the other parent’s rights); D.R. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & 

Protective Servs., 281 S.W.3d 598, 601–02 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008, no pet.) (applying 

Lehmann’s definition of “final judgment” to the calculation of appellate deadlines in a parental 

termination appeal).

“[A]n appeal may be prosecuted only from a final judgment.” Ne. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. 

Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). Because no final order has been entered in the 

underlying case, we ORDER appellant to show cause in writing by September 20, 2021 why 

this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant fails to satisfactorily 

respond within the time provided—for example, by obtaining an order severing the termination 

of appellant’s parental rights from the other parties and claims at issue in this suit and filing that 

severance order in a supplemental clerk’s record—the appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(c). If a supplemental clerk’s record is required to establish this court’s jurisdiction, 

appellant must ask the trial court clerk to prepare one and must notify the clerk of this court that 
such a request was made. All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of the 

court.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of August, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### § 697.2 Industry wage rates and effective dates.

Every employer shall pay to each employee in American Samoa, who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in any enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, as these terms are defined in section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate prescribed in this section for the industries and classifications in which such employee is engaged.

| Industry | Minimum wage | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Effective October 3, 2005 | Effective October 18, 2005 | Effective October 1, 2006 |
| (a) Government Employees | $2.77 | $2.84 | $2.91 |
| (b) Fish Canning and Processing | 3.26 | 3.26 | 3.26 |
| (c) Petroleum Marketing | 3.85 | 3.85 | 3.85 |
| (d) Shipping and Transportation: | | | |
| (1) Classification A | 4.09 | 4.09 | 4.09 |
| (2) Classification B | 3.92 | 3.92 | 3.92 |
| (3) Classification C | 3.88 | 3.88 | 3.88 |
| (e) Construction | 3.60 | 3.60 | 3.60 |
| (f) Retailing, Wholesaling, and Warehousing | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 |
| (g) Bottling, Brewing, and Dairy Products | 3.19 | 3.19 | 3.19 |
| (h) Printing | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.50 |
| (i) Publishing | 3.63 | 3.63 | 3.63 |
| (j) Finance and Insurance | 3.99 | 3.99 | 3.99 |
| (k) Ship Maintenance | 3.34 | 3.42 | 3.51 |
| (l) Hotel | 2.86 | 2.93 | 3.00 |
| (m) Tour and Travel Services | 3.31 | 3.39 | 3.48 |
| (n) Private Hospitals and Educational Institutions | 3.33 | 3.33 | 3.33 |
| (o) Garment Manufacturing | 2.68 | 2.68 | 2.68 |
| (p) Miscellaneous Activities | 2.57 | 2.63 | 2.70 |

[[70 FR 57723](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/70-FR-57723), Oct. 3, 2005]
###### Editorial Note on Part 157

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 157.450 Maneuvering and vessel status information.

A tankship owner, master, or operator shall comply with IMO Resolution A.601(15), Annex sections 1.1, 2.3, 3.1, and 3.2, with appendices.

[CGD 91-045, 61 FR 39790, July 30, 1996]
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Bell Northern Research, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HMD America, Inc., and others,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-22706-Civ-Scola

Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendations

This order concerns two motions referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge Jonathan Goodman for a report and recommendations. This Court 

referred Defendant Hon Hai Industry Co., Ltd.’s motion for exceptional case 

status (ECF No. 163) to Judge Goodman on April 10, 2023. (ECF No. 165.) 

Judge Goodman issued a report, recommending that the Court deny the 

motion. (Report of Magistrate, ECF No. 236.) Defendant Hon Hai Industry Co., 

Ltd. has not filed objections to the report, and the time to do so has passed.

This Court also referred Defendants HMD America, Inc., HMD Global Oy, 

Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores L.P., Target Corp., and Walmart Inc.’s 

motion to sever and stay (ECF No. 232) to Judge Goodman on November 8, 

2023. (ECF No. 245.) Judge Goodman issued a report, recommending that the 

Court deny the motion. (Report of Magistrate, ECF No. 250.) The Defendants 

have not filed objections, and the time to do so has passed.

The Court has considered Judge Goodman’s reports on these motions, 

the record, and the relevant legal authorities. The Court finds Judge 

Goodman’s reports and recommendation cogent and compelling. The Court 

affirms and adopts Judge Goodman’s reports and recommendation (ECF Nos. 

236, 250). The Court denies the motion for exceptional case status (ECF No. 

163) and motion to sever and stay (ECF No. 250). 

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on December 5, 2023.

_______________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 275 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2023 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32(d)



                                  CERTIFICATION

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gulf Power
Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, we, the undersigned, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gulf Power Company for the quarter
     ended September 30, 2005, which this statement accompanies, 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 of Gulf
     Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     Gulf Power Company.



                                /s/Susan N. Story
                                 Susan N. Story
                      President and Chief Executive Officer



                              /s/Ronnie R. Labrato
                                Ronnie R. Labrato
                     Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                 and Comptroller

Date:  November 3, 2005
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.439 Company Canal. ( a ) The draw of the LA1 bridge, mile 0.4 at Lockport, shall open on signal; except that, from 6 p.m. to 10 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. During the advance notice period, the draw shall open on less than four hours notice for an emergency and shall open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.
( b ) The draw of the S24 bridge, mile 8.1 at Bourg, shall open on signal; except that, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. During the advance notice period, the draw shall open on less than four hours notice for an emergency and shall open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.
[CGD 08-84-12, 50 FR 23306, June 3, 1985. Redesignated and amended by CGD8-85-10, 50 FR 38001, Sept. 19, 1985; USCG-2011-0257, 76 FR 31837, June 2, 2011. Redesignated by USCG-2014-1039, 80 FR 11550, Mar. 4, 2015]