alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARRYL MURRAY : CIVIL ACTION
v. :
ALLEN WEINSTEIN, et al. NO. 05-4557
ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2013, upon consideration of th

January 30, 2013 “Post Settlement Letter” addressed to the Archivist of the United States, and the
February 4, 2013 letter from Defendants’ Counsel asking for a follow-up conference with the
parties to determine Plaintiff's intent regarding the settlement agreement he signed on January 29,
2013, it is hereby ORDERED that:

I will hold a follow-up conference on February 13, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. in Judge
Shapiro’s Courtroom, Courtroom 10-A, Tenth Floor, United States Courthouse, 601 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA. Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendants must appear on February 13, 2013
at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10-A. Plaintiffis to be prepared to testify as to his intent in writing the
January 30, 2013 Post Settlement Letter and specifically whether it is intended to revoke the

signed January 29, 2013 Stipulation for Compromise Settlement. ENTERED
FEB 06 2013

BY THE C
LH atte hipeblbswoecoes

M. e~ ANGELL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

By email to: the Honorable Norma L. Shapiro

Gerald B. Sullivan, Esq. Gerald.Sullivan@USDOJ.gov
By certified mail, return
receipt requested to: Darryl Murray

112 W. Champlost Ave.

Philadelphia, PA 19120
Exhibit 23.1.d


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-87190 and 333-97263 on Form S-3 of Great Plains Energy Incorporated and
Registration Statement Nos. 333-98781 and 33-45618 of Great Plains Energy
Incorporated on Form S-8 of our report dated January 30, 2002 (relating to the
financial statements of DTI Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") not
presented separately herein and which report expresses an unqualified opinion
and includes explanatory paragraphs referring to the Company's filing for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, substantial
doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern and an
impairment charge recorded by the Company), appearing in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Great Plains Energy Incorporated for the year ended December 31,
2002.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
February 27, 2003
----

|   | (2) | Company      or subsidiary cash distributions to shareholders or common      unitholders; |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (3) | Company      or subsidiary earnings before interest and taxes or earnings before      interest, taxes and corporatecharges; |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|   | (7) | Company      or subsidiary return on capital, return on equity, return on assets, or      return on invested capital; |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (8) | Company      or subsidiary cash flow, return on assets or cash flows from operating      activities; |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (10) | Company      or subsidiary operations and maintenance expense or general and      administrative expense; |
|--------|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----

----

----
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Erik Lagerway, President, COO and director of Xten Networks, Inc., certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Xten Networks, Inc.;

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;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 3, 2004

/s/ Erik Lagerway				Erik Lagerway
President, COO and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         3164401
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8228185
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    9414036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              22252378
<PP&E>                                        14452480
<DEPRECIATION>                                12888178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                25044307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1578010
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         23494
<OTHER-SE>                                    21936645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  25044307
<SALES>                                       34874972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                         21316956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6947013
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               24244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7972461
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3019000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4953461
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.90


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 WRITTEN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 /s/
Dennis R. GlassDennis R. GlassChief Executive OfficerMarch 14, 2006/s/
Theresa M. StoneTheresa M. StoneChief Financial OfficerMarch 14, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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 Corporation.



/s/ RICHARD MACCHIA
------------------------------------------
Richard Macchia
Senior Vice President Finance and
Administration and Chief Financial Officer

August 8, 2003


                                       31
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

William Jackson Kitchens,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1206 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

Pat Houge, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoJuly 1, 2005, the United States Marshal returned process

directed to defendant Ben Parisi unexecuted. November 9, 2005, I

directed plaintiff to locate this defendant and to submit two

copies of the complaint and one form USM-285 providing

instructions for service of process. December 2, 2005, plaintiff

requested a blank summons for service upon defendant Ben Parisi.

The United States Marshal does not require a new summons for

this defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 35 Filed 01/06/06 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

2

Accordingly, plaintiff’s December 2, 2005, request is

denied. 

So ordered.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 35 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-168-000]


Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Tariff

February 12, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 8, 2007, Dominion Transmission, Inc. 
(DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised 
Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 153, and Ninth Revised Sheet No. 
1400, to become effective March 9, 2007.
    DTI states that the purpose of the filing is to revise incorrect 
numerical references. No substantive changes have been made to the 
above referenced tariff sheets.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#165053445559787a7f787345636666796462567073647538717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bdddec9d8d4f5f7f2f5fec8eeebebf4e9efdbfdfee9f8b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3352 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold MURDOCK, a/k/a Putt, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6298.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 27, 2001.

Decided May 7, 2001.

Arnold Murdock, pro se. Joyce Kallam McDonald, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Arnold Murdock seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his action construed as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court.*
      *See United States v. Murdock,*Nos. CR-92-301-S; CA-01-306 (D.Md. Feb. 6, 2001). 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.*

We recently held in *United States v. Sanders,*247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, Appellant’s *Apprendi*claim is not cognizable.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SOOK HEE JUNG, AKA Xianghua Shen, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-73711 

Agency No. A204-836-863 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 7, 2017**

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FABER,*** District 

Judge.

Sook Hee Jung, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable David A. Faber, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

FILED

SEP 11 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-73711 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying adjustment of status. We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny in part and dismiss in part the 

petition for review. 

We review questions of law de novo and the agency’s factual determinations 

for substantial evidence. Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2010). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jung did not

meet her burden of demonstrating that she was “waved” into the United States at a 

port of entry and, therefore, “inspected and admitted” for the purpose of 

adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a); Matter of Quilantan, 25 I & N Dec. 285, 

286, 293 (BIA 2010). There were inconsistencies between Jung’s testimony and 

immigration documents submitted on her behalf. Jung did not explain those 

inconsistencies nor did she provide sufficient documentation to corroborate her 

testimony that her entry was procedurally regular for purposes of adjustment of 

status. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (stating that applicant bears the burden of 

establishing eligibility for relief from removal).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jung’s unexhausted contentions that the IJ 

did not provide her sufficient notice and opportunity to produce corroborative 

evidence or to explain its unavailability and that the IJ failed to provide specific 

and cogent reasons for rejecting her explanations regarding the inconsistencies 

between her testimony and the documentary evidence. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 
3 14-73711 

F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not 

presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
No. 50424.

#### Protests 104797-K, etc., of Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was established that the merchandise was short landed and the reports of the customs inspectors corroborated'such shortage. Since the affidavit of shortage required by article 812, Customs Regulations of 1937, was not filed within the 30-day period provided therefor, Government contended that the failure to comply with said article prohibited a decision in plaintiff’s favor. In *Joseph Dixon Crucible Co.*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 71, C. D. 914), it was held that evidence may be presented before this court to establish shortage even though the importer failed to comply with article 812, *supra.*In accordance therewith it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to an allowance in duties upon the whiskies not landed. The protests were therefore sustained as claimed.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00213-CR

DONALD RANDALL CARTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-0080X

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Donald Randall Carter, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal. 

The motion was signed by both Carter and his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 

42.2(a), we grant the motion. See id.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: October 16, 2013

Date Decided: October 17, 2013

Do Not Publish
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 27534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11308]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending April 28, 
2012

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0063.
    Date Filed: April 23, 2012.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 708TC3, Special Passenger Amending Resolution 
010o, Special Passenger Amending Resolution between Myanmar and TC3 
(except South West Pacific), e-Tariffs, 18-20 April 2012. Intended 
Effective Date: 25 April 2012.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2012-11308 Filed 5-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
No. 58519.

protests 233257-K and 233258-K (Boston).

#### R. M. Bowden Smith *v.*United States,

*431Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the linoleum the subject of *United States*v. *Pacific Overseas Co., W. J. Byrnes & Co.*(42 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 559), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VINCENT JENNELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-32) Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Jennell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, John Leslie Brownlee, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Vincent Jennell, Jr., appeals the district court order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons of the district court. See United States v. Jennell , No. CR-02-32 (W.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2005). We grant the motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED