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

No. 24

- 1103

HADAROU SARE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CHRISTINA NIKIFORIDOU, in her official capacity at the University of Maryland College Park and under her individual capacity; CHENCHEN HANDLER, in her official capacity at the University of Maryland College Park and under her individual capacity; MARUKO KOGURE, in her official capacity at the University of Maryland College Park and under her individual capaci ty; DAN SCHORR, in his official capacity at the University of Maryland College Park and under his individual capacity; HOSOM FATHY, in her official capacity at the University of Maryland College Park and under her individual capacity; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAN D AT COLLEGE PARK , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Julie R. Rubin , District Judge. ( 1:23

- cv - 02675

- JRR )

Submitted : May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1103 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 Hadarou Sare, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew M. Dansicker, LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW M. DANSICKER, LLC, Hunt Valley, Maryland; Megan Marie Jenkins, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland; Lillia n Lane Reynolds, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1103 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Hadarou Sare seeks to appeal various orders the district court entered in the underlying consolidated federal actions, including the district court’s order denying Sare’s motion to remand one of the underlying actions to the state court from which it was
removed

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order s Sare seeks to appeal are neither final order s nor appealable interlocutory or collateral order s
. See, e.g. , Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis , 519 U.S. 61, 74 (1996) (“An order denying a motion to remand, standing alone, is obviously not final and immediately appealable as of right.” (cleaned up))

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Sare’s
motion for an order of default , s ee 4th Cir. R

. 34(b) (“Appellee is permitted, but not required, to file an informal response brief within 14 days after service of appellant’s informal brief.”) , and his motion to add additional defendants to this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 24-1103 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
#### § 50-205.6 Complaints.

When a complaint of alleged safety and health violations by an employer apparently subject to the Act is filed with a State agency, that agency shall transmit a copy of the complaint to the cooperating office of the Department of Labor within 5 days from the receipt of the complaint. All complaints shall be considered confidential and shall not be disclosed to any employer without the consent of the complainant.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"17-2193: JENKINS v. MSPB [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hIKWWJHfc7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-02-2019-17-2193-jenkins-v-mspb-opinion-precedential-17-2193-opinion-1-2-2019\/\">17-2193: JENKINS v. MSPB [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-02-2019-17-2193-jenkins-v-mspb-opinion-precedential-17-2193-opinion-1-2-2019\/embed\/#?secret=hIKWWJHfc7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-2193: JENKINS v. MSPB [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"hIKWWJHfc7\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: JENKINS v. MSPB [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-2193 Origin: MSPB Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY COMMANDER NAVY REGION HAWAiI 850 TICONDEROGA ST STE 110 JBPHH, HAWAII 96860-5101
5090 Ser N45/574 July 29, 2014 CERTIFIED NO: 7012 3050 0000 0992 9630
Mr. Richard Takaba Hawaii State Department of Health Environmental Management Division Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch Underground Storage Tank Section 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 212 Honolulu, HI 96814

Dear Mr. Takaba:
SUBJECT: DRAFT WORK PLAN/SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN, TANK 5

AREA CHARACTERIZATION, U.S. NAVY RED HILL BULK FUEL STORAGE FACILITY, JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAII DOH FACILITY ID 9-102271 DOH RELEASE ID 990051, 010011, 020028, 140010
The enclosed is the draft Work Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan (WP/SAP) which was prepared in response to the release of petroleum fuel product from Tank No. 5 located at the U.S. Navy Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility. The enclosed WP/SAP Plan also includes the project Health and Safety Plan.
We respectfully request that written review comments and/or concurrence be submitted to us no later than seven calendar days after receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Raelynn Kishaba at (808) 471-1171, extension 233.

incer

L.

Dir kc A.AR Nr al'POENTIS t Regi Environmental Department By direction of the Commander5090 Ser N45/574 

### July 29, 2014
Enclosures: 1. Draft Work Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan, Tank 5 Area Characterization, Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii, DOH Facility I.D.: 9-102271, DOH Release ID: 990051, 010011, 020028, 140010, of July 2014 (2 copies - 1 hard copy; 1 CD)

Copy to (w/enclosure): Joanna Seto, DOH SDWB (1 CD) Tom Heutteman, EPA Region IX (Separate cover via email) Steve Linder, EPA Region IX (Separate cover via email) Bob Pallarino, EPA Region IX (Separate cover via email) Omer Shalev, EPA Region IX (Separate cover via email) Rebekah Reynolds, EPA Region IX (Separate cover via email)

2
#### § 302-7.16 Must I use the methods selected by my agency for transportation and temporary storage of my HHG and PBP&E?

No, you do not have to use the method selected (*see* § 302-7.401) by your agency for transportation and temporary storage of your HHG and PBP&E. You may pursue other methods; however, your reimbursement is limited to the actual cost incurred, not to exceed what the Government would have incurred under the method selected by your agency.

[FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18340, Apr. 1, 2011]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the audited
consolidated  financial  statements  at August 31, 1999 and for the twelve month
period ended  August 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                        0001003934
<NAME>                       Unidigital Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Aug-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Sep-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Aug-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         734,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,532,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (744,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               25,966,000
<PP&E>                                         25,876,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,956,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,636,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22,457,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       59,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,252,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,636,000
<SALES>                                        62,774,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               62,774,000
<CGS>                                          30,003,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  30,003,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               21,633,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               321,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,384,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,810,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,349,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,461,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (11,592,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,828,000)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,959,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (2.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.10)


</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00373-CR

IN RE JUSTIN L. VENEGAS

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Justin L. Venegas filed an application for writ of mandamus or of prohibition 

against certain members of the State of Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. We have 

no jurisdiction over any member of the Board of Pardons and Paroles; and we see 

nothing in Venegas’s application which would require us to issue a writ to enforce our 

jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the application.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
In re Venegas Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 8, 2015

Do not publish 

[OT06]
**Exhibit 32**

**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 LipidViro Tech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), we, Thomas J. Howells, President and Chief Executive Officer and Shelley Goff, Treasurer of the Company, 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:*

*May 5, 2011*

 

*By:*

*/s/Thomas J. Howells*

 

 

 

 

*Thomas J. Howells, President and Chief Executive Officer*

*Date:*

*May 5, 2011*

 

*By:*

*/s/Shelley Goff*

 

 

 

 

*Shelley Goff, Treasurer*
  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted December 14, 2007

Decided December 18, 2007 Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER , Circuit Judge Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge No. 06-4227 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. JAMES PINKIN, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 05-CR-656-1 Ronald A. Guzman Judge

. O R D E R James Pinkin was caught in a stolen car with a small quantity of crack and a pistol with its serial number removed. He pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, id. § 922(k). Pinkin qualified as an armed career criminal, and thus was subject to a statutory minimum of 15 years and a guidelines imprisonment range of 188 to 235 months. See id. § 924(e)(1); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. The court sentenced him to a total of 210 months’ imprisonment and a five years’ supervised release. Pinkin filed a timely notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel now moves to withdraw because he cannot discern a nonfrivolous basis for appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 06-4227 Page 2 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Although we invited Pinkin to respond to counsel’s motion, he has not done so. See Cir. R. 51(b). Counsel’s supporting brief is facially adequate, and we limit our review to the potential issue he identifies. See United States v. Schuh , 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel considers only whether Pinkin could challenge his overall prison sentence as unreasonable. Counsel advises, however, that the district court properly calculated the guidelines range and then considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see United States v. Laufle , 433 F.3d 981, 987-88 (7th Cir. 2006), before imposing a sentence slightly below the middle of the range. The district court observed that Pinkin had “dealt out a lot of misery,” and opined that his criminal history would have warranted a stiffer sentence if he had been younger because “society needs to be protected from this man.” See18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), (2)(C). Counsel notes that this court applies a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines range, United States v. Mykytiuk , 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005), and counsel is unable to articulate any factor in this case th at might overcome that presumption. The Supreme Court recently upheld the use of such a rebuttable presumption, see Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2463 (2007); United States v. Sachsenmaier , 491 F.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2007), and we agree with counsel that any potential challenge to the reasonableness of Pinkin’s sentence would be frivolous. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
No. 10-11157.

#### McDowell *v.*Walsh, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
AFS-14-078-E 

January 30, 2014 

 Exemption No. 5400K 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-10676 

Mr. Donald Dillman 

Director of Operations 

Airlines for America 

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20004 

Dear Mr. Dillman: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 5440, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the 

conditions and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated December 13, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Airlines for America (A4A) for an extension of Exemption No. 5004, as 

amended. That exemption from part 121, Appendix H, Level C Training and Checking 

Permitted, subparagraphs 2b, 3b, and 3c allows member airlines of A4A to use Level C 

simulators for pilot in command (PIC) initial and upgrade training and checking and reduces 

the upgrade/transition pilot experience requirements of part 121, Appendix H. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to A4A. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 5400, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 
 2

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the 

FAA Administrator has delegated to me, Airlines for America is granted an extension to its 

exemption from part 121, Appendix H, Level C Training and Checking Permitted, 

subparagraphs 2b, 3b, and 3c that allows member airlines of A4A to use Level C simulators 

for pilot in command (PIC) initial and upgrade training and checking and reduces the 

upgrade/transition pilot experience requirements of part 121, Appendix H, subject to the 

following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Upgrade training and the certification check required by § 61.157, when the pilot— 

a. Has previously qualified as second in command (SIC) in the type airplane to 

which the pilot is upgrading; and 

b. Is currently serving as SIC with that operator in an airplane in the same group 

as the type airplane to which the pilot is upgrading. 

2. Initial training and certification check required by § 61.157, when the pilot— 

a. Is employed by an airplane operator; 

b. Is currently serving as SIC with that operator in an airplane of the same group; 

and 

c. Has a minimum of 500 flight-hours as SIC in airplanes of the same group with 

that operator. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 5400, as amended, to 

January 31, 2016 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Michael J. Zenkovich 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
Exhibit 31.4








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jay C. Horgen, certify that:





|   |                                                                                          
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.; and




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







Date: March 29, 2018





/s/ JAY C. HORGENJay C. HorgenChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Power Analysis for Program Evaluation

Level I: Defining and Understanding Statistical Power

Key Word Definitions: 

Study design—the set of methods and procedures used by researchers that provide an overall strategy 

for integrating different study components, such as sampling, data collection, and analysis. 

Sample size—the number of experimental units (e.g., sites, organizations, people) observed over a given 

number of time points or measures. 

Impact estimate—the computed difference between study groups (e.g., treatment and control) 

associated with the program or intervention in the units of the outcome (e.g., ACT scores, income 

dollars, etc.)

Statistical analysis-- methods used to estimate the size of the program or intervention’s impact and its

statistical significance, assuming a particular study design.

Effect size—the impact estimate standardized into a scale-free statistic (Cohen’s d, correlation, etc.)

Significance level—the likelihood of the statistical result (or more extreme) assuming the null 

hypothesis is true. 

Standard error, Margin of error, Confidence level—various metrics used to estimate statistical 

significance that are based on the estimated uncertainty of the sampled data.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Probabilistic requirements(partial) verification methods best practices improvement: variables acceptancesampling calculators /**
 
SuDoc Number:NAS 1.15:2012-217335

Item Number:0830-D (online)
CGP systemNumber:000876223
 
Volumes: 0102
 
April 29, 2020
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130570 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MARK HADDAD,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130570 

 COA: 256659 

Wayne CC: 02-243629-NO

GEORGE TSOUKALAS,

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

ALEXANDER HARLAMBOS SAKELLARIS 

and ALEXANDRA SAKELLARIS,

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the 

completion of proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals. 

t0522 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2006 

Clerk
No. 11-9047.

#### Magwood *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.