alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7940

GERALD COSTELLO WATKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON P. GALLEY; JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv00910-AMD) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 1, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Costello Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gerald Costello Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watkins 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.8D





                                  TEXTRON INC.
                     1994 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN AMENDMENT




*    Earned performance share units are valued by using the average of the
     composite closing prices for the first ten trading days following the end
     of the award period (i.e. first ten days in January).

*    Because of Y2K concerns (market uncertainty) the O&C Committee recommends
     that the Board of Directors amend the 1994 Long-Term Incentive Plan to
     shift the valuation to the first ten trading days in December, 1999. Award
     payments would still be made in January as is Textron's normal practice.

*    The O&C Committee recommends that the Board of Directors amend the 1994
     Long-Term Incentive Plan as follows:


                                  FOR APPROVAL

The Board of Directors hereby amends the 1994 Long-Term Incentive Plan as
follows:

     "Current Value" as defined in section 3.7 of the Textron 1994 Long-Term
     Incentive Plan shall mean the average of the composite closing prices, as
     reported in the Wall Street Journal, for the first ten trading days in
     December 1999 for performance share units earned for the cycle ending with
     fiscal year 1999 only.
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

I, Meng Hao, hereby 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 Year End Report on Form 10-K of Razor Resources Inc. for the period ended     April 30, 2013 (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 Razor Resources Inc.

Dated: August 13, 2013

/s/Meng Hao

Meng Hao

President, Secretary and Director (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) Razor Resources Inc.

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 Razor Resources Inc. and will be retained by Razor Resources Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 57088.

Suit 4707.

#### Universal Transcontinental Corp. *v.*United States.

Abstract 55816 affirmed November 4, 1952. C. A. D. 497.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JEFFREY BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE BARNHART,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-2105JLR

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Jeffrey Baker’s motion for

attorney’s fees, expenses, and other costs (Dkt. # 21) under the Equal Access to Justice

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a), (d) (“EAJA”). The court has reviewed the motion, supporting

documentation, Defendant’s response (Dkt. # 22), and Mr. Baker’s reply (Dkt. # 23). 

The parties agree that Mr. Baker meets the statutory requirements for an award of

fees and costs under the EAJA. The court finds that Mr. Baker’s request for attorney’s

fees in the amount of $8,082.51, expenses in the amount of $58.72, and costs in the

amount of $71.25 is reasonable. 

Case 2:05-cv-02105-JLR Document 24 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 2

The court GRANTS Mr. Baker’s motion (Dkt. # 21) and orders Defendant to issue

a check in the amount of $8,212.48 made payable directly to Mr. Baker’s attorney,

Robert A. Friedman, on behalf of Mr. Baker. 

DATED this 8th day of November, 2006.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02105-JLR Document 24 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 72506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23177]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4539-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Washington; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Washington (FEMA-4539-DR), dated April 23, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on September 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Toney L. 
Raines, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Andrew P. Meyer as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23177 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 13.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying report on Form 20-F of the Company for
the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 Date: June 20, 2011
    /s/ Angeliki FrangouAngeliki FrangouChief Executive OfficerDate: June 20, 2011
    /s/ George AchniotisGeorge AchniotisChief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1759** 

BURL ANDERSON HOWELL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

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

. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:14

- cv - 00898

- F )

Submitted : August 4, 2015 Decided: August 11, 2015

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Burl Anderson Howell, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Burl Anderson Howell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying without prejudice as premature his motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgmen t
. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and co llateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order
Howell seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingl y, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-11096

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jack Wade Warren, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:83-CR-138-1

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jack Wade Warren, federal prisoner # 13477-077, seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denials 

of his motion to dismiss his underlying convictions for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. The district 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-11096 Document: 00516243830 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2022
No. 20-11096

2

court denied Warren’s request to proceed IFP on appeal because he failed to 

provide a certificate of his inmate trust account, as ordered by the district 

court.

Before this court, Warren contends that he should be permitted to 

proceed IFP without further authorization pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) based on his prior IFP status. However, Rule 

24(a)(3) does not apply here because Warren was last granted IFP status over 

seven years ago and, in the interim, the district court denied him IFP status

due to his failure to provide a certified copy of his inmate trust account 

statement as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). See Fed. R. App. P.

24(a)(3)(A). 

In addition to Warren’s failure to provide the requisite financial 

information, Warren has not shown that he has a nonfrivolous issue for 

appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Because this 

appeal is frivolous, we may dismiss it sua sponte. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 

F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Warren 

that the filing of future repetitive, frivolous, or abusive filings may result in 

the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and 

restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to 

this court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we DENY Warren’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal,

DENY his motion to amend the caption, DISMISS his appeal as frivolous, 

and issue him a SANCTION WARNING.

Case: 20-11096 Document: 00516243830 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2022
Before the First Division,

August 26, 1954

No. 58335.

protest 141049-K (New York).

#### John Wanamaker, New York *v.*United States,

*344Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 57673, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 66142.

#### Radio Wire Television, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/ 24441, etc. (New York).

*339Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic tapes similar in use to cotton tapes and following the principles in *United States*v. *Sternberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-KSB of our report dated August 14, 1998 included in
Prologic Management Systems, Inc.'s Form 10-KSB dated March 31, 1998 and to all
references to our firm included in this registration statement.
 
                                                /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Phoenix, Arizona,
August 14, 1998
November 24, 2021

Mr. Joseph Hwang

Managing Director, Regulatory Policy

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

200 West Street

New York, New York, 10282

Dear Mr. Hwang:

This is in response to the request by The Goldman Sachs Group, 

Inc., New York, New York (Goldman Sachs), for approval to determine the riskweighted asset (RWA) amount for default fund contributions to qualifying central 

counterparties (QCCPs) in Japan under an alternative method available under 

section 217.133(d)(6)(vi) of the Board’s capital rule.

1

Advanced approaches banking organizations must use the 

standardized approach for counterparty credit risk (SA-CCR) when calculating 

RWA amounts for exposures covered by SA-CCR, beginning January 1, 2022. 

Board-regulated institutions using SA-CCR must, in certain circumstances,

calculate the RWA amount for contributions to a QCCP’s default fund using the 

QCCP’s hypothetical capital requirement (KCCP) as calculated by (1) the 

Board-regulated institution using SA-CCR or (2) a substantially identical 

methodology in a foreign jurisdiction.

2

 In Japan, the implementation of a 

methodology substantially identical to SA-CCR will not be in effect by January 1, 

2022, and instead is expected to take effect later in 2022.

The capital rule provides that a Board-regulated institution that has 

adopted SA-CCR may, with the prior approval of the Board, calculate its RWA 

amount for a default fund contribution to a QCCP using method 1 of the default 

1

 See 12 CFR 217.133(d)(6)(vi); see also 12 CFR 217.132(c).

2

 12 CFR 217.133(d)(6)(ii).
2

fund contribution framework under subpart D of the capital rule rather than under 

the default fund contribution framework under subpart E of the capital rule, which 

is based on SA-CCR.

3

 Goldman Sachs requests approval to calculate the RWA 

amount for its default fund contributions to QCCPs in Japan using method 1,

beginning January 1, 2022, or, if earlier, on the first day of the calendar quarter 

that Goldman Sachs begins using SA-CCR for purposes of the capital rule through 

the day that is 30 days after the effective date in Japan of a methodology 

substantially identical to SA-CCR. 

Based on all the facts of record, the Director of the Division of 

Supervision and Regulation, acting under authority delegated by the Board, has 

granted Goldman Sachs’ request.4 This decision is based on the specific facts and 

representations in the request and in related communications with Board staff. 

Any change in these facts or representations should be communicated immediately 

to Board staff and could result in a different conclusion. Goldman Sachs should 

notify Board staff if a methodology substantially similar to SA-CCR is not 

effective in Japan by January 1, 2023.

Please contact David Lynch, Deputy Associate Director, Division of 

Supervision and Regulation (202-452-2081), with any questions.

Very truly yours,

Margaret McCloskey Shanks

Deputy Secretary of the Board

3

 12 CFR 217.133(d)(6)(vi) (referring to 12 CFR 217.35(d)(3)(ii)).

4

 This approval is limited to QCCPs that have not provided a KCCP to Goldman Sachs. 

See 12 CFR 217.133(d)(5).
A89A2325.

#### ROUNDTREE et al. v. THE STATE.

(391 SE2d 682)

Decided February 26, 1990.

*Allen, Brown & Bruce, Michael J. Classens,*for appellants.

*J. Lane Johnston, District Attorney, Jack B. Williamson, Jr,, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendants were convicted of armed robbery (Count 1) and entering an automobile with intent to commit a theft (Count 2). This appeal followed. *Held:*

1. In their first enumeration of error, defendants contend the trial court erred in overruling a motion for mistrial. The motion was made when the district attorney questioned one of the defendants concerning the whereabouts of potential alibi witnesses. In this regard, defendants assert the motion for mistrial should have been granted because by his questions the district attorney was improperly commenting on defendants’ failure to come forward with exculpatory evidence. This enumeration of error is without merit. The district attorney’s questions were not improper. See generally *Haas v. State,*146 Ga. App. 729, 731 (3) (247 SE2d 507). Besides, the motion for mistrial was not renewed after the trial court instructed the district attorney to abandon the challenged line of questioning. See *Chandler v. State,*143 Ga. App. 608, 609 (2) (239 SE2d 158).

2. The trial court did not commit reversible error in charging the jury on the presumption of truthfulness. *Coleman v. State,*189 Ga. App. 366, 367 (5) (375 SE2d 663). “Although the challenged charge should no longer be given, it is not unconstitutionally burden shifting. [Cits.]” *Johncox v. State,*189 Ga. App. 188, 189 (4) (375 SE2d 139).

3. The trial court did not err in giving the jury a “dynamite” charge. No objection was made to the charge. Moreover, the charge was nearly identical to the charge approved by the Supreme Court in *Spaulding v. State,*232 Ga. 411, 413 (4) (207 SE2d 43). See *Jordan v. State,*172 Ga. App. 496, 499 (5) (323 SE2d 657).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carley, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement of Outdoor Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 14,
1997, except for Note 16 as to which the date is March 26, 1997, appearing in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Outdoor Systems, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1996.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



Phoenix, Arizona
October 20, 1997
No. 52394.

protests 73394-K, etc. (San Francisco, etc.).

#### Alph Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of TGFIN Holdings, Inc.


                           By:  /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert
                           Name: Scott Emerson Lybbert
                           Title: Chief Executive Officer





I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of TGFIN Holdings, Inc.


                           By: /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert
                           Name: Scott Emerson Lybbert
                           Title: Chief Financial Officer