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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior 

District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1; 0:09-cv-70126-CMC) 

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Acting 

United States Attorney, Jimmie Ewing, William Kenneth 

Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kenneth Roshaun Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, 

the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after 

the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

September 17, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on 

January 6, 2017.* Because Reid failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the envelope containing the undated notice of 

appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly 

delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276

(1988). 
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
July 6, 2015

Mr. William Paden

Soaring Eagle Imaging, LLC

133 Glen Arbor Court

Brandon, MS 39042

Dear Mr. Paden:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 10, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Soaring Eagle Imaging, LLC

into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0964), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
7/2/2015 Regulations.gov ­ Other Document

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA­2015­0964­0001 1/2

Soaring Eagle Imaging, LLC - Exemption/Rulemaking

This Other document was issued by the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA)

For related information, Open Docket Folder

Content

William Paden

Soaring Eagle Imaging, LLC

133 Glen Arbor Court

Brandon, MS 39042

soaringeagleimaging@yahoo.com

Attachments (1)

Comment Now!

ID: FAA­2015­0964­0001

Document Information

Date Posted:

Apr 10, 2015

Show More Details

Submitter Information

Submitter Name:

William Paden

Mailing Address:

133 Glen Arbor Court

City:

Brandon

Country:

United States

State or Province:

MS

ZIP/Postal Code:

39042

Organization Name:

Soaring Eagle Imaging, LLC

Comments

0

Docket Information

This document is contained in

FAA­2015­0964

Related Dockets:

View Attachment:

Soaring Eagle Imaging, LLC -

Exemption/Rulemaking

Comments Received*
Case 2:04-cv-02027-LKK -DAD   Document 7    Filed 08/02/05   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-24T22:58:11-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We have issued our reportdated August 20, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedules incorporated by reference in the Annual Report of KOSSCORPORATION on Form 10-K for the years ended June 30, 2008, 2007 and2006.  We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement ofKOSS CORPORATION on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-89872, 333-37986 and333-20405).

 

GRANT THORNTON LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

August 22, 2008

 

----
An equal opportunity employer

1220 L Street, Northwest Russell White

Washington, DC 20005-4070 Health Sciences Manager

Tel 202-682-8344

Fax 202-682-8270

whiter@api.org

July 29, 2011

Karl Simon

Division Director

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Mail Code: 6406J

Washington, DC 20460

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation: 

Final Submission for 211(b) (Docket No. A-90-07)

Final Report Gasoline ETBE Vapor Condensate: A One-Generation Whole-Body 

Inhalation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats (HLS Study No. 00-4204)

Dear Mr. Karl Simon:

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), 

is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) 

Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation:

 Final Report Gasoline ETBE Vapor Condensate: A One-Generation WholeBody Inhalation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats (HLS Study No. 00-4204)

This report has undergone review by two independent peer-reviewers, outside QA/QC, the 

211(b) Technical Workgroup, and EPA (Hauchman to Oge Memorandum, December 17, 2010).

Therefore the report is being submitted to you at the EPA Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, as part of the requirements of Clean 

Air Act Section 211(b)(2) and 211(e) (Docket No. A-90-07). If you require further information or 

have any questions regarding this submission, please contact me.

Regards,

Russell D. White

Encl (1): Final Report Gasoline ETBE Vapor Condensate: A One-Generation Whole Body 

Inhalation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats (HLS Study No. 00-4204)

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
<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.

    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James A. Yost, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
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, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

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

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



                                /s/ JAMES A. YOST
                    ----------------------------------------
                                  James A. Yost
                                 Vice President,
                       Finance and Chief Financial Officer



Date: December 10, 2004
**Exhibit 32**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,the following certifications are being made to accompany the Registrant’s annual report on Form10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005:**Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350**I, Michael J. Koss, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Koss Corporation (the“Company”) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:     (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: September 28, 2005   /s/ Michael J. Koss   Michael J. Koss  Chief Executive Officer, President and  Chief Financial Officer
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

PETITION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM 1

DAVID J. BEAUVAIS (CA Bar # 84275)

1904 Franklin Street, Suite 800

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 832-3605

Facsimile: (510) 832-3610

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS KELLER, et al., ) No. CIV.S 04-1325 LKK DAD-P

)

Plaintiffs, )

) 

vs. ) PETITION AND ORDER FOR

 ) APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN

) AD LITEM

)

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

______________________________________)

Petitioner states as follows:

1. Petitioner is the natural father and legal guardian of Crystal Keller born, July 13 1997, 

who is named as a plaintiff in this action. I am over the age of 18 years and I am 

competent to act in the minors’ best interests.

2. I request an order approving my request to act as guardian ad litem for the 

minor children in this action.

3. I have an interest in the subject matter of this action in that I am also a named plaintiff

herein.

//

//

//

Case 2:04-cv-01325-LKK -DAD Document 55 Filed 03/27/06 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

PETITION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM 2

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this 

petition was executed on March 13, 2006 at Sacramento, California.

/s/ Dennis Keller 

 DENNIS KELLER

ORIGINAL SIGNATURE ON FILE

ORDER

The court having considered the petition of Dennis Keller for appointment as 

guardian ad litem and good cause appearing therefor:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Dennis Keller is appointed guardian ad litem for 

Crystal Keller.

DATED: March 27, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01325-LKK -DAD Document 55 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2
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

In connection with the Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, 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 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 result of operations of the Corporation.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Beverly A. Cummings
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 14, 2011
Exhibit 32.1

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

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 Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings GP,
LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ Don R. Wellendorf                     
|Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer
|Date: May 6, 2008                         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership
and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 52291.

protest 130288-K (New York).

#### Park & Tilford Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts 'are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 52048 and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested and not found were not in fact received by the importer or by any other person for the importer’s account. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it pertains to the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested and not found, is subject to an allowance in duties and internal revenue taxes. The protest was sustained to this extent.
r.1AHY FALUN GARY L. SH ERRER GOV ERNOR SECRETARY OF E NVIRONMENT

STATE OF OKL A HO MA OFF I C E OF T H E SE CR ETARY O F ENV I RO NME NT www .env iro nment.ok

. gov M ay 4 , 2 01 2

Mr. S a m Colem a n Ac tin g R eg io n a l Admini s trat o r U.S

. E n v ir o nm e nt a l Pr o te cti o n A ge n cy, R eg io n VI ( 6

- R A) 144 5 R oss Ave nu e , Suite 1200 D a ll as, Texa s 7 5 20 2 -2733 Subj ec t : P ro p osa l f o r in c lu s io n o f th e W i lc o x R e fin e ry ( OKOOOIOI0 9 17 ), Bri s tow, C re e k Co unt y, O kl a h o ma o n th e Na tional Pri o riti es Li s t ( NPL)
De a r Mr. Col e man : T hi s le tt e r i s in r es p o n se to th e U.S . E n v iro nm e ntal P ro tec ti o n A ge ncy 's (E PA ) r e qu es t for co n c urr e nce fr o m th e S tat e of Oklah o ma f o r th e prop osa l t o inclu de th e Wilco x Re fin e ry Sit e o n th e NPL. I a m w rit i n g yo u a s Gove rn o r F allin 's des ign ee regardin g e n v iro nm e ntal i ss u es. T he S it e R e m e di a ti o n Se c ti o n o f th e Land P ro tec ti o n Di v i s i on, Okl ah o ma De partm e n t of E n v ironm e nt al Qu a lit y ( DEQ ), h as b ee n a c ti ve l y in vo l ve d w ith th e in v e s ti ga ti o n of th e Wil cox R e fin e ry s it e s in ce it was i d e nti fie d in 1 99 4. Fo rm e r r ef

in e ri es are o f g r ea t co n ce rn t o th e St a te du e to th e lar ge a mo unt of was tes pr o du ce d by th ese fac ilitie s , th e l eve ls of h eavy metal s and o rga nic ch e mi ca l s a ss o c i at e d with th e was t es, and th e threat that th ese contam i n ant s po se to human health a nd the e n v iro nm e nt. Th e St a te of O kl a h o ma b e li eves that th e s it e i s e li g ibl e fo r inclu s io n o n th e NP L , as indi c at e d b y th e D EQ in ves ti ga ti ons a nd pre limin ary mod e lin g. Use o f Sup e r f und i s th e mos t v iabl e m ec h a ni s m ava il ab le t o p ay fo r th e re me diation. A c hurch with a playground a nd s ix res id e n ces are l oca te d on th e fo rm e r re fin ery . Th e p o te n t ially res po n s ibl e part y (P RP ) has turn e d down D E Q 's reque s t t o clea n up th e s it e vo lunt a ril y. T he St at e o f Ok l a h o ma s upp o rt s th e inclu s i o n o f the W i lc ox R e fin ery S it e on th e NP L and re qu es t s a ss i s t a nce in addr ess ing th e c o nt a mination b ec au s e cur re nt s tate reso urces will no t fac ilitate a tim e l y res p o n se. Sin ce r e l y, 

# JJ.**~~ ~** **secre:a r~"Qn** **lr me** **t**
c c : Honor a bl e M ar y Fallin , Gov ern o r , S t ate of Okl a h o ma S te ve Th o mp so n , Exec uti ve Direc to r , O kl a ho m a D E Q P a m e la Phillip s, Ac tin g Direc tor , S up e rfund Di v i s i o n , EPA Reg i o n 6

3800 N

. C LASSEN BOULEVARD

. OKLAH O MA CITY. OKLAHOMA 73118 TELEPHONE (405) 530-8995 • FAX (4 05 ) 530-899 9 

# '0 P rinted on Recycled Paper
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P.
for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig J. Nargesian,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: November 9, 2005
______________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60088 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JULIUS ALEXANDER MCBRIDE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:98-CR-83-ALL-S

- - - - - - - - - - September 2, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Julius Alexander McBride appeals the sentence that he received following his guilty plea conviction for uttering and attempting to utter counterfeit currency. McBride argues that district court erred when it enhanced his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2) for possessing, having custody, or controlling a counterfeiting device. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding thatNo. 99-60088 -2- McBride knew that the computer that he had rented and kept in his home was being used for counterfeiting was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Bollman , 141 F.3d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Bermea , 30 F.3d 1539, 1575 (5th Cir. 1994). AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arlene MONEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-5504.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 15, 2001.

Before BOGGS and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges; CLELAND, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Robert H. Cleland, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Arlene Money appeals her judgment of conviction and sentence. The parties have expressly waived oral argument pursuant to Rule 34(j)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, *365and we agree that oral argument is not necessary. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Money pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced her to 120 months of imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release.

In her timely appeal, Money argues that the sentencing judge erred by refusing to sentence her below the statutory-minimum sentence pursuant to the safety-valve provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, USSG § 5C1.2.

The district court did not clearly err in refusing to sentence Money under § 5C1.2. A defendant has the burden of proving safety-valve eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. *United States v. Adu,*82 F.3d 119, 123-24 (6th Cir.1996). The “truthful information” criterion, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) and § 5C1.2(5), requires “an affirmative act by the defendant truthfully disclosing all the information [s]he possesses that concerns h[er] offense or related offenses.” *Adu,*82 F.3d at 124. A district court’s determination as to whether a defendant has truthfully provided all information is subject to review only for clear error. *Id.*

The court did not commit clear error. At sentencing, Money delivered inconsistent testimony regarding the depth of her involvement with a conspiracy that purchased cocaine in Florida and returned to sell it in Crossville, Tennessee. Two agents for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation delivered testimony that illuminated these inconsistencies, and the district court found that the testimony of the agents was more credible than Money’s. A district court’s findings of fact and determinations of witness credibility at sentencing are reviewed for clear error. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). “A finding is clearly erroneous when ‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” *United States v. Russell,*156 F.3d 687, 690 (6th Cir.1998) (quoting *United States v. United States Gypsum Co.,*333 U.S. 364, 365, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). A review of the evidence reveals that the sentencing court did not clearly err in its credibility determination.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.