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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-04-2483 LKK/DAD

RODNEY L. CUNNINGHAM;

PAMELA L. CUNNINGHAM; and

GUILD MORTGAGE CO.,

Defendants.

 /

On November 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for summary

judgment to be heard on January 17, 2006 on the court’s Law and

Motion calendar. On March 15, 2005, following a conference with

the parties, the court issued its Status Order which explicitly

states that:

All law and motion except as to discovery is left open, save

and except that it shall be conducted so as to be completed

by November 29, 2005. The word "completed" in this context

means that all law and motion matters must be heard by the

above date (emphasis supplied).

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-02483-LKK -DAD Document 32 Filed 12/16/05 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

Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

DENIED as untimely. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 15, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02483-LKK -DAD Document 32 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 2
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4071 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6708

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KEVIN LAMONT WALKER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

District Judge. (4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1)

Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Lamont Walker appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s order and deny Walker’s motion to 

expedite the decision as moot. 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
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   May 10, 2010   | By:  | /s/ MICHAEL S. DUNLAP                                                          |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                            |      | Name: Michael S. DunlapTitle:   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |   |

|   | By:  | /s/ TERRY J. HEIMES                                             |   |
|--------|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |      | Name: Terry J. HeimesTitle:   Chief Financial Officer |   |
**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 withAmendment No. 1 tothe Annual Report of IceWEB, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Mark B. Lucky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 Company.

 

 

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 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.
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the
basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-20222 Summary Calendar

EARNEST EDWARD DACUS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

MARVIN T. RUNYON, Postmaster General,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-93-2309)

November 28, 1995 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Ap pellant was employed by the Postal Service and was fired

after being indicted for a drug offense. He filed a claim with the

EEOC and the Merit Systems Protection Board seeking reinstatement,

to no avail. Appellant then filed this suit alleging race

discrimination as the reason he was not reinstated. The Appellee

moved for summary judgment which the district court granted.2

Appellant appeals. We affirm.

In this Court, Appellant first compla ins that the district

court’s consid eration of prior EEOC proceedings relating to his

firing and attempted reinstatement deprived him of his right to

trial de novo under Title VII. His position is wrong as a matter

of law. The United States Supreme Court decision which recognizes

the right to de novo trial in fed eral Title VII actions also

declared that “[p]rior administrative findings made with respect to

an employment discrimination claim may, of course, be admitted as

evidence at a federal sector trial de novo,”. C handler v.

Roudebush

, 425 U.S. 840, 863 n.39. S ee also Fed. R. of Evid.

803(8)(c). C ortes v. Maxus Exploration Co.

, 977 F.2d 195 (5th Cir.

1992). The documented proceedings were submitted in support of

Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and were properly

con sidered. There is no rule which makes summary judgment

procedures inapplicable in federal Title VII proceedings.

Appellant also complains that the district court deprived him

of discovery. The record shows, however, that the parties were

afforded by the pretrial order the period from October 15, 1993 to

October 14, 1994 for discovery. During this period, Appellant did

no discovery. He first sought discovery five days after the

discovery period ended. The Appellee objected and the district

court sustained the objection. We find no abuse of discretion in

that action.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.2

  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with Section 1, U.S.C., 1950, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of M.B.A. Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
the Company for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company.

Dated: January  22,  2003


                                        By /s/ Dennis M. O'Connor
                                           --------------------------------
                                           Dennis M. O'Connor
                                           Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Ramirez, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 155]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered June 2, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of *71⁄2*to 15 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, made after both sides had rested and long after the prosecution had stated that it did not intend to call the witness in question, was *179properly denied as untimely *(People v Efremashvili,*207 AD2d 717, *Iv denied*84 NY2d 934). Further, comment by defendant on the People’s failure to call the witness was properly precluded for failure to make any showing that the witness was either available to the People or that his testimony would be noncumulative *(People v Henry,*197 AD2d 383, *lv denied*83 NY2d 853). Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct during summation is largely unpreserved, and, in any event, there was no obdurate pattern of inflammatory remarks that deprived defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119, *lv denied*81 NY2d 884). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification**     I, Paul A. Lang, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Arch Western Resources, LLC;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Reserved.]  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.                                                           /s/ Paul A. Lang   Paul A. Lang  Date:  May 15, 2006 President
No. 59599.

protests 247109-K (B), etc. (New York).

#### Air Clearance Ass’n, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, David M. Otto, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual  report on Form 10-KSB,  as amended,  of TechAlt,
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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for  establishing  and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
procedures  (as defined in Exchange Act Rules  13a-15(e) and  15d-15(e)) for the
registrant 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  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report my 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 registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have  disclosed,  based on the most recent  evaluation of internal  control
over financial reporting,  to the registrant's  auditors and the audit committee
of  registrant'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  registrant'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 registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

January 13, 2006


/s/ David M. Otto
-----------------------
David M. Otto
Principal Financial Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2014

- 0006 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2013

- NM

- 147

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

c ost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Incorporate AFM

TR in AFM

Emergency

Procedure 2.5 $ 212.50 $ 

### 0 $ 212.50 

### 9 4 $ 19,975.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 19,975



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour ) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 

### 0 $ 0.00



### Replasement 23.0 $ 1,955.00 $722,556 $ 724,511.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysi s ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regul atory action”?

YES * NO

* Explana tion:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answ er.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Bray 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

STEPHEN LEROY HOBBS, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1262-96-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 APRIL 1, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

A. Bonwill Shockley, Judge 

 I. Lionel Hancock, III (Bohannon, Bohannon & 

Hancock, P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Officer DePew lawfully stopped Hobbs' vehicle to issue him a 

summons for an unquestioned violation of a City ordinance. 

 After being stopped, Hobbs voluntarily consented to the 

search of his automobile. The validity of that consent is not at 

issue. Thus, the search was not unconstitutional. Schneckloth 

v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 (1973). See also Lowe v. 

Commonwealth, 218 Va. 670, 678, 239 S.E.2d 112, 117 (1977). 

 On appeal, Hobbs contests the validity of his pat-down by 

Officer DePew. However, that frisk produced no incriminating 

evidence and is neither claimed by Hobbs, nor shown by the 

record, to have influenced Hobbs' consent to the search of the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

car. Therefore, the validity of the frisk is not a dispositive 

issue in this appeal. 

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
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 

Patrick R. Holley, Sr.,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2006 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

California Department of

Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoDecember 1, 2005, defendants requested an extension of time

to respond to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories. Good

cause appearing, defendant’s request is granted and time is

extended until 30 days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: December 8, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 35 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 1
Slip Op. 08-27

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: Senior Judge Nicholas Tsoucalas

________________________________________

CRAWFISH PROCESSORS ALLIANCE; :

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF :

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY; :

BOB ODOM, COMMISSIONER, :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

and : Consol. Court No.

: 02-00376

HONTEX ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a :

LOUISIANA PACKING COMPANY; :

QINGDAO RIRONG FOODSTUFF CO., LTD. :

and YANCHENG HAITENG AQUATIC :

PRODUCTS & FOODS CO., LTD; :

BO ASIA, INC., GRAND NOVA :

INTERNATIONAL, INC., PACIFIC :

COAST FISHERIES CORP., :

FUJIAN PELAGIC FISHERY GROUP CO., :

QINGDAO ZHENGRI SEAFOOD CO., LTD. :

and YANGCHENG YAOU SEAFOOD CO., :

:

Defendant-Intervenors :

and Plaintiffs. :

________________________________________:

JUDGMENT

Upon consideration of the Department of Commerce’s Final

Remand Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, filed

with the Court on January 28, 2008 (“Final Results”), the Court

finds that those remand results comply with the Court’s remand

order in Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, 31 CIT __,

Slip Op. 07-156 (October 30, 2007) insofar as they treat Fujian

Pelagic Fishery Group Co. (“Fujian”) and Pacific Coast Fisheries

Corp. (“Pacific Coast”) as affiliated parties pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(33)(E). Having done so, Department of Commerce recalculated

Fujian’s dumping margin from 174.04% to 60.83% for the period

September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2000, the period of review.

No party objected to the Final Results. Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Final Results are affirmed; and it is further

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this

case is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Nicholas Tsoucalas 

 NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

 SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: March 5, 2008

New York, New York