alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2331** 

TERESA WINFUL , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.
THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Defendant

– Appellee , and

GEORGE OHLANDT; CECILE KAMATH, in their official capacities , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv - 02150

- DCN )

Submitted : July 25, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James Lewis Mann Cromer, Ryan K. Hicks, J. LEWIS CROMER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Bob J. Conl ey, Caroline W. Cleveland, CLEVELAND & CONLEY, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Teresa Winful appeals the district court’s order granting the Medical University of South Carolina’s summary judgment motion on Winful’s retaliation and gender and race discrimination claims, which were brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as a mended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
to 2000e

- 17 (2012) (Title VII). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s judgment

. Winful v. The Med. Univ. of SC , No.
2:13

- cv - 02150

- DCN (D. S.C. Sept. 28, 2015 ). W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Winful also asserted claims of age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2015) ; discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012); and civil conspiracy, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2012). Winful stipulated to dismissal of these claims.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL AYALA, No. CIV S-04-0903-RRB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ANDREASEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

(Doc. 26), filed on September 25, 2006.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

(9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional

circumstances. 

Case 2:04-cv-00903-JAM -CMK Document 28 Filed 09/28/06 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: September 27, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00903-JAM -CMK Document 28 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2202 DFL GGH P

vs.

E. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed March 22, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days

leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02202-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 06/14/05 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/14/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

alle2202.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02202-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 9491)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 16903, etc.

(Decided August 19, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell é Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Dowb,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*479OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain items of plywood that were exported from Finland during the years 1955 and 1956 and entered at the port of San Francisco.

Stipulated facts upon which the case has been submitted establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value for the items of merchandise that were “advanced in value and appraised on the basis of the home market value” is the appraised unit values, less 4 per centum, packed, and I so hold.

The appeal for reappraisement, having been abandoned as to the items of merchandise that were appraised on the basis of the “entered invoice unit values,” is dismissed as to such merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4219]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request; copies available from: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 
20549.

Extension: Rules 7a-15 thru 7a-37; OMB Control No. 3235-0132; SEC 
File No. 270-115.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rules 7a-15 through 7a-37 (17 CFR 260.7a-15--7a-37) under the Trust 
Indenture Act of 1939 set forth the general requirements relating to 
applications, statements and reports that must be filed under the Act 
by issuers and trustees qualifying indentures under that Act for 
offerings of debt securities. The respondents are persons and entities 
subject to the Trust Indenture Act requirements. Rules 7a-15 through 
7a-37 are disclosure guidelines and do not directly result in any 
collection of information. The Rules are assigned only one burden hour 
for administrative convenience.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether these proposed 
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o 
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or 
send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#58080a1907153931343a3720182b3d3b763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dd8d8f9c8290bcb4b1bfb2a59daeb8bef3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 2, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4219 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Annual Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel Sheng, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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
      Company.





A signed
original 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.







Date:
      April 14, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Samuel ShengSamuel
      Sheng
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (principal
      financial and accounting officer)
Exhibit 31.02


      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14

         I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Essential Innovations Technology
Corp.;

         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: March 17, 2005

/s/ Kenneth G.C. Telford
----------------------------
Kenneth G.C. Telford
Principal 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN JACOBO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1876 LKK GGH P

vs.

MATTHEW C. KRAMER, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On November 2, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01876-LKK -GGH Document 23 Filed 01/11/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 2, 2005, are adopted in

full; and 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss filed December 29, 2004, is granted.

DATED: January 10, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/jaco1876.801

Case 2:04-cv-01876-LKK -GGH Document 23 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 2
January 5, 1943

No. 47884.

Suit 4381.

#### Cargill *Grain Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 579 affirmed November 2, 1942. C. A. D. 219.
No. 52026.

#### Kraus Bros. & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 117395-K, etc. (New York).

*169Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger's return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF 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 the Annual Report on Form 10-K of OpenTV Corp. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig M. Waggy, 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 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.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    Craig M. WaggyName: Craig M. Waggy Title: Chief Financial Officer


Dated: April 11, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OpenTV Corp. and
will be retained by OpenTV Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6569

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee,

versus

CLARENCE COLLINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-94-138, CA-97-221)

Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* While the district court incorrectly noted the possibility

that Collins’ § 2255 motion, filed on April 24, 1997, might be

untimely, it did not base its dismissal on this ground. As we

recently concluded, a § 2255 motion filed on that date is timely.

See Hernandez v. Caldwell, 225 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2000).

2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his 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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Collins, Nos. CR-94-138;

CA-97-221 (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 5, 2000; entered Apr. 10, 2000). 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
No. 58045.

protests 132297-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### Geo. S. Bush *& Co.,*Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of the merchandise marked “A,” parts of internal-combustion engines, imported separately, or marked “B,” internal-combustion engines, imported with power saws, are the same in all material respects as the articles involved in *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(41 C. C. P. A. 33, C. A. D. 525), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. Further, in accordance with said stipulation, it was held that the value of said items marked “A” is the appraised value and that the value of said items marked “B” is the percentage of the appraised value of said power saws, as noted in green ink on the invoices by the examiner.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(i)




February 19, 2002



Jefferson-Pilot Corporation
100 North Greene Street
Greensboro, NC  27401

         Re:      Commitment to extend Employment Agreement

As discussed with Messrs. Melvin, Cunningham and Pittard, the members of the
Compensation Committee, and agreed, I hereby commit to an extension of my
current Employment Agreement, as amended, from December 31, 2002 to February 28,
2005 in accordance with these agreements by the Corporation:

1.   My position in the Corporation will continue after 2002 as CEO and/or
     Chairman or such other position as both parties shall mutually agree from
     time to time, which mutually agreed change in position would not be a
     circumstance described in Section 2(b)(iv)(B) or (D) of the Employment
     Agreement.

2.   My total compensation (base salary, annual bonus, LTIP, and annual option
     grant) shall continue at 2001 value levels, adjusted as appropriate for
     target performance and inflation.

This letter shall be in full force and effect from this date until replaced by a
mutually agreed upon formal revision to my existing Employment Agreement, and
supercedes other written understandings contemplating the extension of the
Employment Agreement to February 28, 2005.

Date:            2/19/02                 By:     /s/  David A. Stonecipher
      -----------------------------          -----------------------------------
                                             David A. Stonecipher

                                             Approved by Compensation Committee:


                                                     /s/ E. S. Melvin
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             E. S. Melvin, Chairman


                                      E-3
(Reap. Dec. 10053)

#### The Knitting Machine & Supply Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1027278.

(Decided August 1, 1961)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

LawRence, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for a reap-praisement presents the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain V-bed flat knitting machines.

The merchandise in issue was appraised on the basis of United States value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (c)).

Plaintiff herein does not controvert the basis of value but does allege error in the quantum of such value.

*418When this case was called for trial, the parties hereto stipulated and agreed that the invoice unit prices, plus 2 per centum for packing, represent the value of the machines in issue.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that United States value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, supra, is the proper basis of value for the V-bed flat knitting machines in controversy and that said value is the invoice unit prices, plus 2 per centum for packing. As to all other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.