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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7169

CHARLES MICHAEL MITCHELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHIEF AUSTIN; PAUL MEAD, and all other concerned parties of the Columbia City Police

Department,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-99-1620-0-23BD)

Submitted: February 6, 2001 Decided: February 20, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Michael Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Gordon Cooper,

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Appellees are Charles Austin, Chief of Police for the City

of Columbia, South Carolina, and Paul Mead, an investigator with

the Columbia City Police Department.

2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Michael Mitchell appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion agreeing with the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant

summary judgment to the Appellees* and find no error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v.

Austin, No. CA-99-1620-0-23BD (D.S.C. Aug. 2, 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

§ 36.373 Services—Account 6620. ( a ) For apportionment purposes, the expenses in this account are first segregated on the basis of an analysis of job functions into the following classifications: Telephone operator services: publishing directory listing; and all other. ( 1 ) Expenses may be apportioned among the operations for groups of exchanges. A group of exchanges may include all exchanges in the study area.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Grant Geophysical, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard F. Miles,
Chief Executive Officer 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ RICHARD F. MILES

Richard F. Miles
President and Chief Executive Officer
June 10, 2003
No. 11M35.

#### Vega-Cosme *v.*United States.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Amended Annual Report of BSML, Inc., on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 29, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jeff Nourse, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, 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: April 28, 2008



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Jeff Nourse                     
|Jeff Nourse                         
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P014False Burglar Alarms POP Guide, 2nd EditionIn the United States, false alarms account for 10 to 25 percent of all calls to the police. In this problem-oriented guide for police, author Rana Sampson explores the problem of false burglar alarms and presents alternative strategies to address the false alarm dilemma. The guide begins by reviewing the factors that increase the risk of false burglar alarms. It then identifies a series of questions that might assist law enforcement address their local problem of false burglar alarms. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem and what is known about them from evaluative research and police practice.By Rana SampsonCategories: Nonviolent Crime • POP Center ResourceLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p014Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFPamphlet • Sep 2011Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 04:33 (UTC-5) in 0.89 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Jones Soda Co. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter van Stolk, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                      |  |  |  |             
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------
|                                      |  | 
|/s/ Peter van Stolk                   |  |  |  | May 16, 2005
|Peter van Stolk                       |  |  |  |             
|Chief Executive Officer and President |  |  |  |
No. 11-6157.

#### Mangual *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Directors' Compensation



 Exhibit 10.5 
 Directors’ Compensation 
 Beginning May 11, 2004, all non-employee directors of the Bank and Trust Company receive $400 and $250,
respectively, for each board meeting they attend. The non-employee directors of the Bank and Trust Company receive $150 for each committee meeting they attend. In addition, beginning May 9, 2006, non-employee directors of the Bank and Trust
Company are paid an annual retainer fee of $8,000 and $3,000, respectively, except that directors serving on the Bank board who also serve on the Trust Company board receive an additional $1,000 instead of $3,000 annual retainer for serving on the
Trust Company board. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Company Board is paid an additional $2,000 retainer fee. All Company directors have been elected as directors of the Bank, but there is no assurance that this practice will
continue. However, not all Company directors serve as directors of the Trust Company. There are no additional fees paid for being a Company director. 
 The
Company also pays for all directors and their spouses to attend regular director seminars. 
 Non-employee directors are eligible for non-qualified stock
options, under the Company’s 1998 Stock Option Plan. See Exhibit 10.3 for details of agreement. There were no non-qualified stock options issued in 2006.
§ 76.944 Commission review of franchising authority decisions on rates for the basic service tier and associated equipment. ( a ) The Commission shall be the sole forum for appeals of decisions by franchising authorities on rates for the basic service tier or associated equipment involving whether or not a franchising authority has acted consistently with the Cable Act or §§ 76.922 and 76.923. Appeals of ratemaking decisions by franchising authorities that do not depend upon determining whether a franchising authority has acted consistently with the Cable Act or §§ 76.922 and 76.923, may be heard in state or local courts.
( b ) Any participant at the franchising authority level in a ratemaking proceeding may file an appeal of the franchising authority's decision with the Commission within 30 days of release of the text of the franchising authority's decision as computed under § 1.4(b) of this chapter. Appeals shall be served on the franchising authority or other authority that issued the rate decision. Where the state is the appropriate decisionmaking authority, the state shall forward a copy of the appeal to the appropriate local official(s). Oppositions may be filed within 15 days after the appeals is filed, and must be served on the party(ies) appealing the rate decision. Replies may be filed 7 days after the last day for oppositions and shall be served on the parties to the proceeding.
( c ) An operator that uses the annual rate adjustment method under Section 76.922(e) may include in its next true up under Section 76.922(e)(3) any amounts to which the operator would have been entitled but for a franchising authority decision that is not upheld on appeal.
[58 FR 29753, May 21, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 17974, Apr. 15, 1994; 60 FR 52121, Oct. 5, 1995]
#### § 95.351 Station identification.

Operators of Personal Radio Services stations are not required to transmit any form of station identification, unless otherwise required for a Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. *See e.g.,* § 95.1751.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).

College of Information and Cyberspace National Defense University

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission & Vision             
  -  Faculty & Staff             
  -  Fact Sheet             
  -  Alumni             
  -  Internships             
  -  FAQ 
-  Admissions    -  Eligibility Requirements             
  -  Admissions Calendar             
  -  Application Instructions             
  -  Apply Online             
  -  International Students 
-  Academics    -  Graduate Catalog             
  -  M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies      -  JPME Master's Degree             
    -  Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time) 
  -  Leadership Development Programs             
  -  Graduate Certificates             
  -  Academic Partners 
-  Current Students    -  JPME II  Incoming Students             
  -  LDP Incoming Students             
  -  Student Registration             
  -  Bring Your Own Device             
  -  IA Compliance             
  -  Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts             
  -  Student Services and Resources 
-  Events    -  Cyber Beacon             
  -  Cyber PME Colloquium             
  -  Hopper Award             
  -  Lecture Series             
  -  CYBERCOM Symposium 
-  NEWS		 
-  UC2    -  About             
  -  Events             
  -  Work With Us 
-  Center for Cybersecurity    -  About             
  -  Cybersecurity Center POC             
  -  Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty             
  -  CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program             
  -  Cybersecurity Trending News             
  -  Cyber Labs      -  Ethical Hacking             
    -  Critical Infrastructure - SCADA 
  -  Cyber Exercises      -  Tabletop Exercise             
    -  Cyber Competitions 
  -  Cyber Resources and Awareness             
  -  Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Directions             
  -  Access to Ft. McNair             
  -  Map of Ft. McNair 

HomeNEWSNews & Announcements

## News & Announcements

# Hamby and Trawick publish article on Cyber Disasters

Chancellor Jan Hamby and Professor George Trawick recently published an article with Brink News entitled: "

# Before Cyber Disaster Strikes: Developing a Cyber Response Plan."Here's a short summary: 

Businesses face a continuously evolving cyber threat—one that can strike at the most inopportune time. When a cyber incident does occur, a sound cyber response plan can be the difference between fending off a damaging attack with reputation intact or suffering a catastrophe to both financial and reputational bottom lines.Read the entire article here:  http://www.brinknews.com/before-cyber-disaster-strikes-developing-a-cyber-response-plan/ 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________



### m 00-30042 Summary Calendar

_______________



### J AMES 

### A LLEN 

### S MITH AND 

### S ADIE 

### B REWER 

### S MITH 

### ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS



### C ITGO 

### P ETROLEUM 

### C ORPORATION 

### ,
Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(98-CV-1815)

_________________________ July 11, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

J ames Smith sued Citgo Petroleum Corporati on for injuries allegedly suffered in

an accident at a Ci t go refinery. The district

court granted summary judgment for Citgo, concluding that Smith was Citgo’s statu t ory employee , so his exclusive remedies were under Louisiana’s workers’ compensation laws. The court also rejected Smith’s argument that the workers’ compensation laws violate the Equal Protection Clause.

In a thorough Memorandum Ruling, the * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that th is opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.2

district court ex plained its reasons. The judgment is affirmed, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.

In summary, we agree with the distri ct court’s analysis of the futility of Smith’s Equal Protecti on claims. We furt her agree that the facts of this case raised the rebuttabl e presumpt i on, as per L A

. R EV

. S TAT

. A NN

. § 23:1061, that Smith was a statutory empl oyee of Citgo and i s therefore
pr e sumptively barred from bringing claims sounding in tort against the company, and that Smith cannot, given these facts, rebut that presumption in

t he manner required by the statute following its 1997 amendment.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This scheldule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          53,075
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,825,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,895,513
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,083,366
<PP&E>                                          79,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,734,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,257,145
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        590
<COMMON>                                           491
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,475,839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,734,065
<SALES>                                     41,309,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,309,872
<CGS>                                       36,549,384
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,549,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                458,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                   189,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            269,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   269,700
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04




</TABLE>
From: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Kelley

Spence/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: John Bradfield/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Schrock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 12/12/2011 12:27 PM Subject: OMB

________________________________________ Here are all the documents forwarded to OMB. thanks robin Robin Dunkins Leader, Natural Resources Group Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards US Environmental Protection Agency (C504 - 03) (phone) 919 - 541 - 5335 (fax) 919 - 541 - 3470 dunkins.robin@ep a.gov
#### § 95.2733 Prohibited MURS uses.

MURS stations must not be operated as repeater stations or signal boosters. This prohibition includes store-and-forward packet operation.
No. 10-10840.

#### Reed *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
- Letter from Judiciary
- Page 1