alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50856

 Conference Calendar

 

PRENTIS PERRY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ERNEST PACK, Correctional Officer III

at Boyd Unit; KEVIN COOK, Correctional

Officer III at Boyd Unit; MONTE CALAME,

Sergeant at the Boyd Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-97-CV-336

- - - - - - - - - -

October 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Prentis Perry, Texas prisoner # 506616, has filed a motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal,

following the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). By moving for IFP status, Perry is

challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status

should not be granted on appeal because his appeal presents no 
No. 98-50856

-2-

nonfrivolous issues and is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Perry argues that the district court failed to give its

reasons for denying his motion for leave to proceed IFP on

appeal. Perry also argues that the district court may not

dismiss his § 1983 action after requiring him to pay a partial

filing fee, relying on Grissom v. Scott, 934 F.2d 656, 657 (5th

Cir. 1991). The district court stated it was denying Perry’s IFP

motion because he had not identified a nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Perry’s reliance on Grissom is misplaced as it was

decided prior to the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform

Act (PLRA), and Perry’s action was filed after the April 26,

1996, effective date of the PLRA. Perry has not shown that he

will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Accordingly, we

uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal

presents no nonfrivolous issue. Perry’s request for IFP status

is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh,

117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Perry’s § 1983 action

counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the

dismissal of this appeal as frivolous also counts as a “strike”

for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d

383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Perry is warned that if he

accumulates a third “strike” pursuant to § 1915(g), he may not

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
No. 98-50856

-3-

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING

ISSUED.
**Exhibit32.2**

CERTIFICATION OFCFO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Trinity Capital Corporation, a New Mexicocorporation (the “Company”), for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Daniel R. Bartholomew as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Daniel R. Bartholomew |   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|
| Daniel R. Bartholomew     |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer   |   |   |
| November 9, 2006          |   |   |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-vsBRUCE E. CLARK

________________________________

Case No. 2:12-cr-053 (1)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to

Rule 11, F.R.Cr.P. and has entered a plea of guilty to Counts one (1)

and two (2) of the Information. After examining the Defendant under

oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determine

that the defendant is competent and capable of entering an informed

plea, that the guilty plea is knowingly and voluntary made and that

the offenses charged are supported by an independent basis in fact

containing each of the essential elements of such offense. 

 I therefore RECOMMEND the plea agreement and the plea of

guilty should be accepted and the Defendant should be adjudged guilty

and sentenced accordingly. Otherwise, the plea agreement should be

rejected and the defendant should be allowed to withdraw the guilty

plea. 

The Defendant remains on bond pending sentencing. 

Date: March 22, 2012 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and

Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its service

shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and

Recommendation before the assigned United States District Judge. 28

U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B).

Case: 2:12-cr-00053-JLG-TPK Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/22/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL


OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Alternative Energy & Environmental Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)           The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2012 (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.





Dated:   November 28, 2012
/s/Peter CokerPeter Coker, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
Exhibit 12.1

Zayo Group, LLC

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(dollars in thousands)



|                                                            |  |      |        |   |      |   |         |            |  |   |        |   |  |   |        | 
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ------ | - | ---- | - | ------- | ---------- |  | - | ------ | - |  | - | ------ | 
|                                                            |  | 2008 |        |   | 2009 |   |         | 2010       |  |   | 2011   |  
|                                                            |  |      |        |   |      |   |         | (Restated) |  |   |        |  
|Calculation of Earnings                                     |  |      |        |   |      |   |         |            |  |   |        |   |  |   |        | 
|Pre-Tax Income From Continuing Operations                   |  | $    | (4,103 | ) |      | $ | (11,923 | )          |  | $ | (9,222 | ) |  | $ | 7,548  | 
|Fixed Charges                                               |  |      | 7,678  |   |      |   | 17,117  |            |  |   | 22,396 |   |  |   | 38,211 | 
|                                                            |  |      |        |   |      |   |         |            |  |   |        |   |  |   |        | 
|Pre-Tax Income From Continuing Operations and Fixed Charges |  | $    | 3,575  |   |      | $ | 5,194   |            |  | $ | 13,174 |   |  | $ | 45,759 | 
|                                                            |  |      |        |   |      |   |         |            |  |   |        |   |  |   |        | 
|Calculation of Fixed Charges                                |  |      |        |   |      |   |         |            |  |   |        |   |  |   |        | 
|Interest Expense                                            |  |      | 6,287  |   |      |   | 15,245  |            |  |   | 18,692 |   |  |   | 33,414 | 
|Interest Factor in Rental Expense(1)                        |  |      | 1,391  |   |      |   | 1,872   |            |  |   | 3,704  |   |  |   | 4,797  | 
|                                                            |  |      |        |   |      |   |         |            |  |   |        |   |  |   |        | 
|Total Fixed Charges                                         |  | $    | 7,678  |   |      | $ | 17,117  |            |  | $ | 22,396 |   |  | $ | 38,211 | 
|                                                            |  |      |        |   |      |   |         |            |  |   |        |   |  |   |        | 
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                          |  |      | 0.47   |   |      |   | 0.30    |            |  |   | 0.59   |   |  |   | 1.20   | 
|                                                            |  |      |        |  
|Deficiency                                                  |  | $    | (4,103 | ) |      | $ | (11,923 | )          |  | $ | (9,222 | ) |  |   | n/a    | 



|(1) | The portion of
total rental expense that represents the interest factor is estimated to be 12.5 percent.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 9:21 AM

To: 'aerial.imagingkc@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Professional Drone Imaging LLC (FAA-2015-1977)

August 5, 2015 

Dear Mr. Jennings: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−1977). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process 

your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The descriptions should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by August 

19, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MALIK J. SOUDAH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 Civil Action 2:11-cv-206

v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

RADOSLAW LEWKOWSKI, et al., 

Defendants.

 ORDER

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the August 24, 2011 Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers. (ECF

No. 4.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant dismiss this action without

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of

process. 

The Report and Recommendation specifically advises parties that the failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report results in a “waiver of the

right to de novo review . . . by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment

of the District Court.” (Report and Recommendation 2, ECF No. 4.) The time period for filing

objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. Plaintiffs have not objected to the

Report and Recommendation. 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections

Case: 2:11-cv-00206-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT

PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 GREGORY L. FROST

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00206-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PennantPark Floating Rate Capital Ltd. (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arthur H. Penn, as Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge 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 Registrant.

 

| /s/ Arthur H. Penn |
|--------------------|
| Name:              |   | Arthur H. Penn |
| Title:             |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:              |   | November 30, 2017 |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TODHUNTER
INTERNATIONAL, INC'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ITS THREE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,615,338
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,315,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 23,675,473
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,586,193
<PP&E>                                      76,375,320
<DEPRECIATION>                              34,189,066
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,251,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,941,573
<BONDS>                                     36,027,959
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,497
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,500,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                95,251,790
<SALES>                                     16,540,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,540,922
<CGS>                                       11,184,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,184,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,287,510
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             923,832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,145,303
<INCOME-TAX>                                   193,678
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            951,625
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   951,625
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
        

</TABLE>
#### Wedemann & Godknecht, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7538.

Entry No. 802422.

Invoice dated Dietikon, Switzerland, May 6, 1947.

Certified May 7, 1947.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 26, 1947.

(Decided February 11, 1948)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Guy Gilbert Bibaudo,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Olivee, Presiding Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement under section 501, as amended, of the Tariff Act of 1930 from the value found by the United States appraiser at the port of New York on certain cable releases, parts of cameras, exported from Switzerland.

The merchandise was invoiced at 2.90 Swiss francs each, plus packing and other charges, f. o. b. New York, but entered at 4.95 Swiss francs each, plus packing and subsequently appraised at the entered value. At the trial it was stipulated between counsel for the respective parties that the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States was 2.90 Swiss francs each, plus packing, and that there was no higher foreign value.

Accordingly, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value was 2.90 Swiss francs each, plus packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2008165EN.01000601.xml

| 28.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/6

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2008/C 165/04)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation are legal tender throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties involved who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 8 December 2003 (2), euro-area Member States and those countries that have concluded a Monetary Agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins intended for circulation are allowed to issue certain quantities of commemorative euro coins for circulation, on condition that not more than one new coin design is issued per country per year and that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the technical features of normal euro circulation coins, but bear a commemorative design on the national side.

1

2

Issuing country: Portugal

Subject of commemoration: 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Description of the design: The inner part of the coin shows the Portuguese coat of arms at the top, above the name of the issuing country (‘PORTUGAL’), the year mark ‘2008’ and a geometric design in the bottom half of the centre. The legend ‘60 ANOS DA DECLARAÇÃO UNIVERSAL DOS DIREITOS HUMANOS’ runs along the edge of the bottom two thirds of the inner ring and is followed by the inscription ‘Esc. J. Duarte INCM’ in very small characters.

The outer ring of the coin shows the twelve stars of the European flag.

Maximum number of coins to be issued: 1 035 000 coins

Approximate date of issue: September 2008

Edge lettering: Five coats of arms and seven castles equally spaced.

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national sides of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Council (General Affairs) of 8 December 2003 on changes in the design of national sides of euro coins. See also the Commission Recommendation of 29 September 2003 on a common practice for changes to the design of national sides of euro circulation coins (OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 38).

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 154 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 154

     Designating October 21, 2005, as ``National Mammography Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2005

    Mr. Biden (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bunning, Ms. 
  Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Isakson, Ms. 
 Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Designating October 21, 2005, as ``National Mammography Day''.

Whereas according to the American Cancer Society, in 2005, 212,930 women will be 
        diagnosed with breast cancer and 40,410 women will die from this 
        disease;
Whereas it is estimated that about 2,000,000 women were diagnosed with breast 
        cancer in the 1990s, and that in nearly 500,000 of those cases, the 
        cancer resulted in death;
Whereas African-American women suffer a 30 percent greater mortality rate from 
        breast cancer than White women and more than a 100 percent greater 
        mortality rate from breast cancer than women from Hispanic, Asian, and 
        American Indian populations;
Whereas the risk of breast cancer increases with age, with a woman at age 70 
        having twice as much of a chance of developing the disease as a woman at 
        age 50;
Whereas at least 80 percent of the women who get breast cancer have no family 
        history of the disease;
Whereas mammograms, when operated professionally at a certified facility, can 
        provide safe screening and early detection of breast cancer in many 
        women;
Whereas mammography is an excellent method for early detection of localized 
        breast cancer, which has a 5-year survival rate of more than 97 percent;
Whereas the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society continue 
        to recommend periodic mammograms; and
Whereas the National Breast Cancer Coalition recommends that each woman and her 
        health care provider make an individual decision about mammography: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates October 21, 2005, as ``National Mammography 
        Day''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```