alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7432

ERIC ERWIN COLLIER, Petitioner - Appellant, versusNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-20-4-1-MU) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Erwin Collier, Appellant Pro Se. Mary D. Winstead, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Eric Erwin Collier seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief under § 2254. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Collier’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 29, 2000. Collier’s notice of appeal was filed on July 25, 2000. Because Collier failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
-  Home 
-  Reports and Publications 
-  All Reports and Publications 
-  1999 
-  Medicare Payments for DRG 014: Specific Cerebrovascular Disorders Except Transient Ischemic Attack 

#                     Medicare Payments for DRG 014: Specific Cerebrovascular Disorders Except Transient Ischemic Attack                

07/22/199907/22/1999

##                         Report Materials                    

        -    Full Report (PDF, 95.9 KB) 

----

            Report Type

Evaluation

            HHS Agencies

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

            Issue Areas

 - 

            Target Groups

 - 

            Financial Groups

 - 

### Notice

This report may be subject to section 5274 of the National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 2023, 117 Pub. L. 263.
No. 66012.

#### Charles Sadek Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/18684 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458) the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 61014.

protest 268011-K (New York).

#### Transcontinental Seed, Inc., and Alltransport, Inc. *v.*United States,

Richardson, Judge:

By this suit, plaintiffs claim that merchandise assessed at 2 cents per pound under the provision in paragraph 763, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, for clover, not specially provided for, should be dutiable at 1 cent per pound under the provision in said paragraph, as modified, *supra,*for forage crop seeds, not specially provided for.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed (lotus corniculatus) similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental Seed, Inc. (Alltransport, Incorporated)*v. *United States,*29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462, and under authority of the decision cited, we sustain the claim of the plaintiffs that the merchandise represented on the invoice by the items marked *“A”*and checked with the initials JH by Examiner James Halligan, which was assessed with duty at 2 cents per pound under paragraph 763, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, as clover seed, not specially provided for, is properly dutiable at 1 cent per pound under the same paragraph, as modified, *supra,*as a forage crop seed, not specially provided for.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

DISSENTING OPINION

Donlon, Judge:

As I indicated in *Albert Dickinson Company*v. *United States,*35 Cust. Ct. 359, Abstract 59603, I do not concur in the decision in *Transcontinental Seed, Inc.*v. *United States,*29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462, the record of which has been incorporated in the record of this case. In my opinion, the protest should be overruled.
From: nancyjohnson.1@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:47:54 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Nancy Johnson

Rochester, NY 14612
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 09-2186 GREGORIO IGARTÚA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court issued on November 24, 2010, is amended as follows: On pp. 77-78, footnote 47: insert a quotation mark at the beginning of "was" to read ""was not a counter-offer")." On p. 89, lines 4 and 17: should read "supra note 34" On p. 91, line 4: should read "supra note 34" On p. 91, lines 6 and 17 of footnote 53: should read "supra note 34" On p. 92, lines 1, 11, and 16: should read "supra note 34" On p. 93, line 1: should read "supra note 34" On p. 93, lines 8 and 16 of footnote 55: should read "supra note 34"
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Zeada Mohammad, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 940]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered November 16, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing him to a term of 8 years to life, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 6 years to life and otherwise affirmed.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
From: rickbarnard@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:08:35 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rick Barnard

Morris, IL 60450
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Lars
Pearl, President and Chief Executive Officer of Aurora Gold Corporation (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:




1.
            The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,
      2008 which this certification accompanies 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:
      August 15,
      2008
            BY:
            /s/ Lars
      PearlLars
      PearlPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer







This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Report”), I, Kenneth E. Shipley,  President and Chief Executive Officer of Legacy Housing Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certify that:

 

1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

|                       |                                         |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| Dated:  April 9, 2019 | /s/ Kenneth E. Shipley                       |
|                       | Name: Kenneth E. Shipley                     |
|                       | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

			 		

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Amendment No. 2 of the Annual Report of Forbes Energy Services Ltd. filed on Form 10-K/A (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Melvin Cooper, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant
Secretary 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 my knowledge, 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.



/s/    L. Melvin CooperL. Melvin CooperSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary


Date: January 24, 2011



Ex. 32.2
 Page 1
From: cdoncox@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:02:13 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they as immoral. I again urge you in the

strongest way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of

mandatory preventive services.

Sincerely,

Donald Cox

Albuquerque, NM 87123
From: radmjax@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:43 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Grady Jackson

Pawleys Island, SC 29585
| **Exhibit 32.1** |
|-----------------------|

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO18 UNITED STATES CODE SS. 1350**

 

**In connection with the Quarterly Report ofGriffin Land & Nurseries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended August 27, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Periodic Report”), I, Frederick M.Danziger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

 

**1.**     The Periodic Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

**2.**     The information containedin the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| ** ** | ** **                                 | **/s/  FREDERICK M. DANZIGER** |
|------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| ** ** | **Frederick  M. Danziger**                 |
| ** ** | **President  and Chief Executive Officer** |
| ** ** | **November 1**, 2005                       |

 

----
From: allengodin@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:28:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Allen Godin

Morrisville, VT 05661
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 of
Annies, Inc (the Company), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), John M. Foraker., President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company and Kelly J. Kennedy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
or her knowledge:



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



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

Dated: June 7, 2012



|                                                      |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ John M. Foraker                                   |  | 
|John M. Foraker
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Kelly J. Kennedy    |  | 
|Kelly J. Kennedy        |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer |  |