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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7577

REGINALD U. FULLARD,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

 Respondent - Appellee.

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

Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00742-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: July 28, 2022 Decided: August 29, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald U. Fullard, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7577 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald U. Fullard seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Fullard’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Fullard’s informal brief, we

conclude that Fullard has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7577 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
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 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Smoky Market Foods, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward C. Feintech, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Edward C. Feintech


Edward C. Feintech


Chief Executive Officer


January 9, 2012
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2434

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Ronda Jo Due, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2007

Filed: July 12, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, court-appointed counsel for Ronda Jo Due has

filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Due pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge and was sentenced

to 60 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. The district court1

 entered

judgment on May 12, 2006. Due’s pro se notice of appeal, dated May 30 and

postmarked June 1, was received by the district court on June 2. Even if the notice of

appeal is deemed filed on May 30, it was not filed within ten days of entry of
-2-

judgment and is therefore untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). A district

court may, however, grant a defendant an additional 30 days in which to file a notice

of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R. App. P.

4(b)(4).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion is held in abeyance and the case is remanded to

the district court to determine whether the time for filing a notice of appeal should be

extended under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). See United States v. Austin, 217 F.3d 595,

597 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v. Petty, 82 F.3d 809, 810 (8th Cir. 1996) (per

curiam). Upon making that determination, the district court shall promptly return the

case to this court for dismissal or further proceedings, as may be appropriate.

______________________________
§ 286.195 What penalties will apply to Tribes? ( a ) Tribes will be subject to fiscal penalties and requirements as follows: ( 1 ) If we determine that a Tribe misused its Tribal Family Assistance Grant funds, including providing assistance beyond the Tribe's negotiated time limit under § 286.115, we will reduce the TFAG for the following fiscal year by the amount so used;
( 2 ) If we determine that a Tribe intentionally misused its TFAG for an unallowable purpose, the TFAG for the following fiscal year will be reduced by an additional five percent;
( 3 ) If we determine that a Tribe failed to meet the minimum work participation rate(s) established for the Tribe, the TFAG for the following fiscal year will be reduced. The amount of the reduction will depend on whether the Tribe was under a penalty for this reason in the preceding year. If not, the penalty reduction will be a maximum of five percent. If a penalty was imposed on the Tribe in the preceding year, the penalty reduction will be increased by an additional 2 percent, up to a maximum of 21 percent. In determining the penalty amount, we will take into consideration the severity of the failure and whether the reasons for the failure were increases in the unemployment rate in the TFAG service area and changes in TFAG caseload size during the fiscal year in question; and
( 4 ) If a Tribe fails to repay a Federal loan provided under section 406 of the Act, we will reduce the TFAG for the following fiscal year by an amount equal to the outstanding loan amount plus interest.
( b ) In calculating the amount of the penalty, we will add together all applicable penalty percentages, and the total is applied to the amount of the TFAG that would have been payable if no penalties were assessed against the Tribe. As a final step, we will subtract other (non-percentage) penalty amounts.
( c ) When imposing the penalties in paragraph (a) of this section, we will not reduce an affected Tribe's grant by more than 25 percent. If the 25 percent limit prevents the recovery of the full penalty imposed on a Tribe during a fiscal year, we will apply the remaining amount of the penalty to the TFAG payable for the immediately succeeding fiscal year. ( 1 ) If we reduce the TFAG payable to a Tribe for a fiscal year because of penalties that have been imposed, the Tribe must expend additional Tribal funds to replace any such reduction. The Tribe must document compliance with this provision on its TANF expenditure report.
( 2 ) We will impose a penalty of not more than 2 percent of the amount of the TFAG on a Tribe that fails to expend additional Tribal funds to replace amounts deducted from the TFAG due to penalties. We will apply this penalty to the TFAG payable for the next succeeding fiscal year, and this penalty cannot be excused (see § 286.235).
( d ) If a Tribe retrocedes the program, the Tribe will be liable for any penalties incurred for the period the program was in operation.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1371

KUNA NDIKUM,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A96-272-173)

Submitted: October 17, 2005 Decided: November 1, 2005

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Paul J.

McNulty, United States Attorney, Joel E. Wilson, Assistant United

States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kuna Ndikum, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of his

applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Ndikum fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Ndikum

cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of

removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 99.7**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C. §1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the annual report of Westport Innovations Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Larkin, Chief Financial 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:

 

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| October 29,   2012 |   | /s/   William Larkin      |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                    |   |                      |
|                    |   | William   Larkin          |
|                    |   | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

This certification accompanies this annual report on Form 40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

1

----
#### Katharine P. Chamberlin and others, *Executors, etc., Respondents, v.*Dorotha Rohr and others, *Appellants*.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Dwight, J., not

sitting.
§ 286.265 When are quarterly reports due? ( a ) Upon a Tribe's initial implementation of TANF, the Tribe shall begin collecting data for the TANF Data Report as of the date that is six months after the initial effective date of its TANF program. The Tribe shall begin collecting financial data for the TANF Financial Report as of the initial effective date of its TANF program.
( b ) Each Tribe must submit its TANF Data Report and TANF Financial Report within 45 days following the end of each quarter. If the 45th day falls on a weekend or on a national, State or Tribal holiday, the reports are due no later than the next business day.
#### § 503.22 Scope of application.

The provisions of this part 503, §§ 503.20 through 503.29, apply to meetings of the Commission, and do not apply to conferences or other gatherings of employees of the Commission who meet or join with others, except at meetings of the Commission to deliberate on or conduct official agency business.
----

| 1. | The Report duly complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ John Roozendaal                                |   | Date:  September 11, 2012 |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
| John Roozendaal                                                                                                                                                                                               |   |                                |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                         |   |                                |   |

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1766 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to authorize the use of Federal 

supply schedules for the acquisition of environmentally preferable ‘‘green’’ 

commodities and services and certain other related items by State and 

local governments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2009 

Mr. MEEK of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to authorize the 

use of Federal supply schedules for the acquisition of 

environmentally preferable ‘‘green’’ commodities and 

services and certain other related items by State and 

local governments. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Green Acquisition 

5 Act’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1766 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR ACQUISITION OF ENVIRON2 MENTALLY PREFERABLE ‘‘GREEN’’ COMMOD3 ITIES AND SERVICES AND CERTAIN OTHER 

4 RELATED ITEMS BY STATE AND LOCAL GOV5 ERNMENTS THROUGH FEDERAL SUPPLY 

6 SCHEDULES. 

7 Paragraph (1) of section 502(c) of title 40, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing new subparagraph: 

10 ‘‘(C) Environmentally preferable ‘green’ 

11 commodities and services (as contained in Fed12 eral supply classification code groups 03FAC, 

13 51V, 56, 72IA, 73, 75, 899 or any amended or 

14 subsequent version of that Federal supply clas15 sification group).’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
---

---

# Exhibit 13.1

Certification Pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of B.O.S. Better Online Solutions Ltd., a
company organized under the laws of the State of Israel (the Company),
for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned
officers 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, to such officers knowledge, that:

| | 1. | the
Report fully complies, in all material respects,  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 as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Report.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|By: /s/ Shmuel Koren
Shmuel KorenPresident and Chief Executive Officer | By: /s/ Eyal Cohen
Eyal CohenChief Financial Officer
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  June 5, 2007



---

---
Editorial Note on Part 85
Editorial Note: At the request of the Department of Health and Human Services, the “Section-by-Section Analysis” portion of the preamble of the document published at 53 FR 25595, July 8, 1988, as corrected at 53 FR 26559, July 13, 1988, appears at the end of part 85.

§ 85.51 Communications. ( a ) The agency shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective communication with applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and members of the public. ( 1 ) The agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to afford an individual with handicaps an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, program or activity conducted by the agency. ( i ) In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the agency shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with handicaps.
( ii ) The agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature.
( 2 ) Where the agency communicates with applicants and beneficiaries by telephone, telecommunications devices for deaf persons (TDD's) or equally effective telecommunication systems shall be used to communicate with persons with impaired hearing.
( b ) The agency shall ensure that interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.
( c ) The agency shall provide signage at a primary entrance to each of its inaccessible facilities, directing users to a location at which they can obtain information about accessible facilities. The international symbol for accessibility shall be used at each primary entrance of an accessible facility.
( d ) This section does not require the agency to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving that compliance with § 85.51 would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the agency head or his or her designee after considering all agency resources available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity in question and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this section would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the agency shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with handicaps receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

PAUL POZNIAK, 

 

 Petitioner, Case No. 1:14-cv-12649 

 Hon. Thomas L. Ludington 

v. 

MARY BERGHUIS, 

 

 Respondent. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 Petitioner, Paul Pozniak, a state prisoner, filed this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

challenging his Michigan convictions. ECF No. 1. The case was stayed for over two years while 

Petitioner exhausted his state court remedies. ECF Nos. 6, 12. On November 4, 2016, in an order 

reopening the case, the Court denied without prejudice Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 

counsel. The Court explained that it would “reconsider this request on its own motion after the 

Respondent has filed its responsive pleading and submitted the state court record.” ECF No. 12. at 

2. Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the decision to deny appointment 

of counsel. ECF No. 15. 

 Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. However, a motion 

for reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly 

or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 

F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). As explained in the previous order, the Court has not yet 

reviewed the merits of Petitioner’s application. Until it has done so, consideration of Petitioner’s 

request for appointment of counsel would be premature. The Court will reconsider the request on 
- 2 - 

its own motion when it undertakes plenary review of the case. The motion for reconsideration will 

be denied. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 15, is 

DENIED. 

 

 Dated: December 8, 2017 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on December 8, 2017. 

 s/Kelly Winslow 

 KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager