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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7401

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN DEONTA STROM, a/k/a Jae Dee, a/k/a Jae, a/k/a J-Dirt,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00159-JCC-1; 1:15-cv-00632-JCC)

Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: February 17, 2016

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin Deonta Strom, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Birnbaum, Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Inayat Delawala, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Justin Denota Strom seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(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 motion 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 

Strom 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
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.2001 Purpose.

To determine eligibility for professional and/or commercial licenses issued by the Commission with respect to any denials of Federal benefits imposed by Federal and/or state courts under authority granted in 21 U.S.C. 862.

[60 FR 39269, Aug. 2, 1995]
No. 11-1210.

#### Donovan *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
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
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as
filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I
Kenneth P. Hamik, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.

Dated: 14 May 2004                         /s/Kenneth P. Hamik
      -----------------                    -------------------------------
                                           Kenneth P. Hamik
                                           President, Chief Executive Officer
                                           and Director
#### § 302-3.311 May I receive reimbursement for travel and transportation from an alternate location other than the duty station?

You will only be reimbursed for expenses up to the cost of travel and transportation expenses from your authorized official station to the place in the U.S. you have elected to reside. Any additional cost you will have to pay.
Interim Decision *1820

'MATTER OF MEDINA-OCEOA In Exclusion Proceedings

A-17384381-2 

### Decided by Board December 13, 1967

Applicants, natives and citizens of M0Y100, who Ara ("timing to the United Statesfor the purpose of demolishing a house that had been given them and taking the salvageable lumber back to Mexico to use in building homes 

### for themselves, who will not be paid and will use no local labor in the operation, are admissible as nonimmigrant visitors for business within the purview of section 101(a) (15) (B), Immigration and Nationality Act. Ex°Lunen's: Act of 1952—Section 212(a) (20) [8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (20)] —Immigrants without visas.

The cases are before us by certification. The special inquiry officer ordered applicants excluded as immigrants not in possession of theappropriate documents. We find applicants admissible as nonimmigrants. The applicants, Jose and his younger brother, Jesus, natives and citizens of Mexico, applied for admission on October 18, 1967 at San Ysidxo, California as nonimmigrants for business. They stated they had been given a house at Long Beach, California by the owner, that they intended to demolish it, take the debris to the local dump, and take the salvageable lumber back to Mexico where they planned to build homes for themselves. The applicants will demolish the building without the use of local labor and will transport the material in a truck belonging to Jesus. They will not be paid. This is the first venture of this type and applicants have no plans to engage in others. They expect to do the job in about six days and plan on making two trips to take all the material to Mexico. Both applicants are farmers; one does some carpentry also.The special inquiry officer held that the applicants' sole and principal purpose is to perform labor in the United States in competition with the local labor market. We however find that the primary purpose is to enter the United States to take back to Mexico property which

547Interim Decision #1820 has been given to them. The cases are similar to that in Matter of Cortez-Vasguez, 10 I. & N. Dec. 544, in which we found a Mexican national who entered the United States to collect wood on American ranchs for disposition in Mexico was admissible as a nonimmigrant visitor for business. ORDER: It is ordered that the decision of October 19, 1967 of the special inquiry officer be reversed and that the applicants be found admissible as nonimmigrant visitors for business.
Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rules

Rule 8. Contested Proceedings 

. . .

(b) Request for Hearing. On request by an attorney, 

the panel shall schedule a hearing, except in cases of 

reciprocal discipline under Rule 2(b) or resignation under 

Rule 2(c) where the hearing shall be at the discretion of 

the panel. . . .
§ 15.405 Cross reference. ( a ) The provisions of subparts A, B, and C of this part apply to unlicensed U-NII devices, except where specific provisions are contained in subpart E. Manufacturers should note that this includes the provisions of §§ 15.203 and 15.205.
( b ) The requirements of subpart E apply only to the radio transmitter contained in the U-NII device. Other aspects of the operation of a U-NII device may be subject to requirements contained elsewhere in this chapter. In particular, a U-NII device that includes digital circuitry not directly associated with the radio transmitter also is subject to the requirements for unintentional radiators in subpart B.
[63 FR 40835, July 31, 1998]
```

[House Report 106-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 106-26

=======================================================================

 
    PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 409, FEDERAL FINANCIAL 
             ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

 February 23, 1999.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 75]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 75, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

               brief summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 409, 
the ``Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act 
of 1999'' under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of 
general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform. The rule 
provides that each section of the bill shall be considered as 
read. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in 
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in 
the Congressional Record. The rule allows the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration 
of the bill, and to reduce voting time to five minutes on a 
postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen minute vote. 
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.

                                

```
No. 11-5017.

#### Loses *v.*Garden et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT - 10.4.4

CIT Commercial Services            T: 213 613-2400
200 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071

CIT logo




December 3, 2002


Mr. Manuel Marrero, CFO
Mossimo, Inc.
2016 Broadway Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90404

Dear Manny:

This letter will confirm our phone conversation of 12/2/02 where it was agreed
that based on the receipt of your 12/02 wire for $1,000,000.00, which will
reduce our outstanding loan balance to $1,068,537.42, CIT will release its
security interest in the personal investment account #2CT-30108 of Mossimo
Giannulli held at Merrill Lynch.

It was also agreed that we will maintain the personal guaranty of Mossimo
Giannulli individually and Mossimo Giannulli, as the sole trustee of the Mossimo
Giannulli Trust dated 1/18/95 with an adjustment in the limit cap of the
guaranty from the present $1,000,000.00 to an amount equal to fifty percent
(50%) of the outstanding debt owed to CIT.

Amendments to our legal documentation to reflect the above are in process and
will be forwarded to you for Mossimo's signature as soon as possible.

Regards,

/s/ James E. Ezemoli


James E. Ezemoli
Vice President
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1913 Administrative offset against amounts payable from Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

Upon providing the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with written certification that a debtor has been afforded the procedures provided in § 1.1912(b)(4), the Commission may request OPM to offset a debtor's anticipated or future benefit payments under the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (Fund) in accordance with regulations codified at 5 CFR 831.1801-831.1808. Upon receipt of such a request, OPM will identify and “flag” a debtor's account in anticipation of the time when the debtor requests, or becomes eligible to receive, payments from the Fund. This will satisfy any requirement that offset be initiated prior to the expiration of the time limitations referenced in § 1.1914(a)(4).
EXHIBIT 31.1

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

I, Nitin M. Amersey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's 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 we 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 annual 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 of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


         c) presented in this quarterly report my 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 Officer's and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):


         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 Officer's 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: May 13, 2004

/S/ NITIN M. AMERSEY
-----------------------------
Nitin M. Amersey
Interim Chairman of the Board

                                       19
<PAGE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on April 10, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Advanced Technology Institute (“ATI”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plantiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are The Advanced Technology Institute, North Charleston, SC; and The Forging Industry Association, Cleveland, OH. The nature and objectives of the venture are to plan, prioritize and implement key research and development initiatives that will provide increased technology and market development within the manufacturing sector and increased US competitiveness in the global marketplace.                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-16607  Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

AMATECH GROUP LTD.,

Appellant

v.

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG,

Appellee

______________________

2023-2300, 2023-2381, 2023-2430

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2022-

00235, IPR2022-00417 and IPR2022-00650.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of AmaTech Group Ltd.’s motion to 

voluntarily dismiss these appeals pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 42(b), and the parties’ response as 

to the allocation of costs,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) These appeals are dismissed.

Case: 23-2300 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2024
2 AMATECH GROUP LTD. v. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

February 6, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 6, 2024

Case: 23-2300 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 02/06/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND FROM CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  526,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    334,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               899,067
<PP&E>                                       3,337,060
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,605,707)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,873,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          738,375
<BONDS>                                        528,521
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,610
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,298,352
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,873,583
<SALES>                                      3,260,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,266,047
<CGS>                                        2,495,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  277,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               279,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                184,656
<INCOME-TAX>                                    61,890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            122,766
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   122,766
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $3.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Comments on: 19-2198: REALTIME DATA LLC v. REDUXIO SYSTEMS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential
{"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":"2018-1067: Blast Motion, Inc. v. Iancu - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XXextoJnE8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-03-2018-2018-1067-blast-motion-inc-v-iancu-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1067: Blast Motion, Inc. v. Iancu<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-03-2018-2018-1067-blast-motion-inc-v-iancu-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=XXextoJnE8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1067: Blast Motion, Inc. v. Iancu” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"XXextoJnE8\" 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":"Oral argument audio posted: Blast Motion, Inc. v. Iancu (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1067 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}