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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7577

DONALD HERRINGTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00412-AJT-MSN)

Submitted: July 29, 2021 Decided: August 20, 2021

Before KING, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Herrington, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Herrington seeks to appeal the district court’s order after remand dismissing

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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). 

“Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” 

Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate one claim 

alleged in Herrington’s § 2254 petition and that the unadjudicated claim was included in 

the claims that we previously remanded to the district court. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, 

the court did not address Herrington’s claim that his state appellate counsel performed 

deficiently by failing to argue that Herrington was denied an impartial jury when the jury 

was informed of the sentence range for some of the offenses during the guilt phase of trial. 

We thus conclude that the order Herrington seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim.

*

 

Id. at 699; cf. Hixson v. Moran, 1 F.4th 297, 301-02 (4th Cir. 2021) (ruling that Porter did 

* We acknowledge that, after the prior remand, the district court performed an 

exhaustive review of the state court record and issued a 47-page opinion explaining its 

reasoning for dismissing Herrington’s § 2254 petition. Our disposition of this appeal is in 

no way a criticism of the district court’s painstaking efforts in these proceedings.
3

not require remand for further consideration of two-component claim where district court 

acknowledged and resolved both components).

We also grant Herrington’s motion to amend his informal brief. 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 AND REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              69
<SECURITIES>                                      5474
<RECEIVABLES>                                       50
<ALLOWANCES>                                        15
<INVENTORY>                                         85
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5725
<PP&E>                                            3369
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              631
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                        5198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6031
<SALES>                                           1247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1247
<CGS>                                             1218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4330
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2635
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2635
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2635
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KWAME LAMAR BARNES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 59 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
From: Marielis Rivera

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please reject exemptions for "religious employers"

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:27:33 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access

to necessary health care. THIS IS NOT FAIR TO THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT DO NOT SHARE

THE FAITH OF THEIR EMPLOYER. It's bad enough that these employers do not provide

all medically-available services to their patients because of the faith of the institution.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of

all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
Order entered July 8, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 01358 - CV JUAN CRUZ, Appellant

V. DEUTCHE BANK NATIONA L TRUST, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. CC - 14 - 04351 - C



### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s July 6, 2015 third motion for an extension of time to file a brief TO THE EXTENT that appellant shall file a brief AUGUST 7, 2015 . We caution appellant that no further extension of time will be granted abs ent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
From: Patti Warner

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Health services for women

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 1:16:34 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine regarding coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by their own personal faith practice and beliefs about

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed,

some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even

though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption

would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work. This is contrary

to professional and medical ethics.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions. Thank

you

A mother of four and grandmother
EXHIBIT 31.2

ACXIOM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CERTIFICATION

I, Warren C. Jenson,
certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Acxiom
Corporation;

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; and

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                   
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: July 30, 2018 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Warren C. Jenson                              
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Warren C. Jenson                                  
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED
                                  STATES CODE

         I, Stanley J. Talbi, the Chief Financial Officer of The Travelers
Insurance Company (the "Company"), certify that (i) the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Form 10-K") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date:    March 31, 2006
                                 /s/ Stanley J. Talbi
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Stanley J. Talbi
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 on Form 10-Q of Senesco Technologies, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Leslie J. Browne, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of Senesco Technologies, Inc.




Dated: May 13, 2011
/s/ Leslie J. Browne *Leslie J. Browne, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)




*  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
H. Res. 449

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 19, 2002.

Resolved, That there is hereby established a Select Committee on Homeland Security.

SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.—The select committee shall be

composed of nine Members appointed by the Speaker, of

whom four shall be appointed on the recommendation of the

Minority Leader. The Speaker shall designate one member as

chairman.

SEC. 3. JURISDICTION.—The select committee may develop recommendations and report to the House on such matters that relate to the establishment of a department of

homeland security as may be referred to it by the Speaker

and on recommendations submitted to it under section 6.

SEC. 4. PROCEDURE.—(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2), rule XI shall apply to the select committee to the extent not inconsistent with this resolution.

(1) Clause 1(b) and clause 2(m)(1)(B) of rule XI

shall not apply to the select committee.
2

•HRES 449 EH

(2) The select committee is not required to adopt

written rules to implement the provisions of clause 4 of

rule XI.

(b) Clause 10(b) of rule X shall not apply to the select

committee.

SEC. 5. FUNDING.—To enable the select committee to

carry out the purposes of this resolution, the select committee

may utilize the services of staff of the House.

SEC. 6. REPORTING.—(a) Each standing or permanent

select committee to which the Speaker refers to a bill introduced by the Majority Leader or his designee (by request)

that proposes to establish a department of homeland security

may submit its recommendations on the bill only to the select

committee. Such recommendations may be submitted not

later than a time designated by the Speaker.

(b) The select committee shall consider the recommendations submitted to it on a bill described in subsection (a) and

shall report to the House its recommendations on such bill.

SEC. 7. DISSOLUTION.—(a) The select committee shall

cease to exist after final disposition of a bill described in section 6(a), including final disposition of any veto message on

such bill.

(b) Upon the dissolution of the select committee, this

resolution shall not be construed to alter the jurisdiction of

any standing committee.
3

•HRES 449 EH

SEC. 8. DISPOSITION OF RECORDS.—Upon dissolution of

the select committee, the records of the select committee shall

become the records of any committee designated by the

Speaker.

Attest:

Clerk.
From: godfree KD

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: stop "religious exemptions" to basic health care!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:47:45 PM

Dear HHS:

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health

care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from

the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this

larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Guarantee ALL women's access to basic health care! Don't give in to religious extremists!

Your constituent,

KDANOWSKI
From: Karen Reichard

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:17:11 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Karen Reichard

Loyola University Women's Resource Center

6363 St. Charles Ave. Box 177

New Orleans, LA 70118
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Central Command

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  ABOUT US    -  COMMAND PRIORITIES             
  -  LEADERSHIP             
  -  COMPONENT COMMANDS             
  -  HISTORY             
  -  POSTURE STATEMENT 
-  CENTCOM AOR    -  CENTCOM COALITION 
-  OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES    -  USMTM 
-  CONTACT    -  OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT             
  -  COMMUNITY RELATIONS             
  -  THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE             
  -  INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL             
  -  MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL 
-  MEDIA    -  SOCIAL MEDIA             
  -  NEWS ARTICLES             
  -  PRESS RELEASES             
  -  STATEMENTS             
  -  IMAGERY             
  -  VIDEOS             
  -  TRANSCRIPTS 
-  VISITORS AND PERSONNEL    -  FAMILY CENTER             
  -  FAMILY READINESS             
  -  CENTCOM WEBMAIL             
  -  SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY             
  -  ACCOUNTABILITY             
  -  EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS             
  -  USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS             
  -  FOIA LIBRARY             
  -  INNOVATION OASIS             
  -  WELCOME GUIDE 

HomeMEDIANEWS ARTICLESNews Article View

# Eisenhower Strike Group participates in interoperability exercises with French Navy

By Cmdr. Brian WierzbickiUSS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69)

                ARABIAN SEA  –              

                The aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), center, the guided-middle cruiser USS San Jacinto (CG 56), left, and the French anti-air frigate Forbin (D620) conduct a group-sail exercise in the Arabian Sea, April 25, 2020. Ike, San Jacinto and Forbin are operating under national tasking, as they participate in a bilateral, interoperability exercise to strengthen partnership between the U.S. and French navies. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Sophie A. Pinkham)            

                Eisenhower Strike Group Participates in Interoperability Exercises with French Navy            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Petty Officer 3rd Class Sophie Pinkham

VIRIN: 200425-N-EE423-1719

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
#### Bige Lee v. The State.

No. 1949.

Decided February 28, 1900.

1. Aggravated and Simple Assault—Verdict.

Where a party is prosecuted for aggravated assault, and that offense, as well as the lesser degree of simple assault, is submitted to the jury, the verdict should, in case of conviction, specify the grade of offense, and if the jury determines to convict of simple assault they should so specify in the verdict.

*2.*Same—Uncertain Verdict.

Where a party is charged with aggravated assault and the court submits both aggravated and the lesser degree of simple assault, and the verdict is a general one imposing a fine of $25 which is the minimum for aggravated and the maximum punishment for simple assault, such verdict is too uncertain to support a judgment, and should be set aside.

Appeal from the County Court of Erath. Tried below before Hon. L. H. Frank, County Judge.

The information charged appellant with an aggravated assault upon W. F. Cox with a knife, a deadly weapon. Both aggravated and simple assault were submitted tó the jury, and their verdict was a general one assessing a punishment of $25.

Ho further statement necessary.

Ho brief for appellant found with the record.

*Dave W. Wilcox*and *BoVt A. John,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSOH, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged by information with aggravated assault. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, assessing the punishment at a fine of $25. The court submitted the issues of aggravated and simple assault. The verdict is general, and does not specify of which grade of assault appellant was convicted. Article 751, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides: “Where a prosecution is for an offense consisting of different degrees, the jury may find defendant not guilty of the higher degree (naming it) but guilty of any degree inferior to that charged in the indictment or information.” If the issue of aggravated assault alone was submitted to the jury, it would not have been necessary for the jury to specify the grade of offense in case of. conviction. Styles v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 599. But where the party is charged with aggravated assault, and the jury determines to convict of simple assault, they should so specify in the verdict. Bowen v. State, 28 *558Texas Crim. App., 498; Hays v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Rep., 546. Where a verdict is so defective and uncertain that the court can not know for what offense to pass judgment, it should be set aside. Guest v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 530; Slaughter v. State, 24 Texas, 410; Alston v. State, 41 Texas, 39; Senterfit v. State, Id., 186; Lomax v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 318. These authorities are directly applicable to this case. The jury should have stated in their verdict of which offense they convicted, for the tine of $25 was applicable to either degree; being the minimum for aggravated assault, and the maximum punishment for simple assault. Appellant reserved his bill of exceptions, fully presenting the matter. For this error the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*