alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1289

CARLOS P. HALE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-193) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos P. Hale, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Drum, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John Francis Corcoran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2 PER CURIAM: Carlos P. Hale pursued a claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, alleging that he was disabled due to back pain and mental healthproblems. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits, reasoning that Hale was not disabled because his medical problems didnot prevent him from performing several specific work roles involving light work activity. The Appeals Council adopted the ALJ’s decision, and the magistrate judge affirmed, finding that the ALJ’sdecision was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence. * See Craig v. Chater , 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996) (“Under the Social Security Act, [federal courts] must uphold the factual findings of the Secretary if they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the correct legal standard.”). Hale now appeals, asserting that the ALJ erred in concludingthat he was not totally disabled due to his back pain and depression. Having carefully considered the record, we conclude that the magistrate judge was correct and affirm on his reasoning. See Hale v. Apfel, Commissioner, No. CA-96-193 (W.D. Va. Jan. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions3 are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 11.1


                      COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
               Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                (Unaudited)


                                                    Quarter
                                                ended October 31,
                                                2000        1999


Net loss applicable to common stock:
  Basic and diluted                         $ (185,140) $ (141,066)

  Weighted average common shares
    outstanding                              6,179,313   6,002,640
  Adjustments for assumed exercise of:
    Stock options                               61,108*     30,261*
    Stock warrants                                  --*         --*
  Weighted average number of common shares
    outstanding and dilutive securities      6,240,421   6,032,901

Net loss per share of common stock:
    Basic and diluted                       $    (0.03) $    (0.02)

* Anti-dilutive.




These calculations are submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item 601
(b)  (11)  which differ from the requirements of paragraph 13 of Statement
of   Financial  Accounting  Standards  No.  128  because  they  produce  an
anti-dilutive result.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-28-2000
<CASH>                                       (264,920)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,365,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  9,384,696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,484,920
<PP&E>                                       4,730,055
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,491,567)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,723,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,803,917
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       816,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,103,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,723,408
<SALES>                                      6,750,797
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,820,724
<CGS>                                        5,676,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,676,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,142,440
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (12,159)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,083)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
## ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# 1383-/9

COA# 06-13-00256-CR Matthew Ryan Jerry Vanover v. 

### STYLE: The State of Texas COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED 

### OFFENSE: 21.11 COUNTY: Hunt TRIAL COURT: 196th District Court DATE: 09/03/14 Publish: No TC CASE #: 28,845



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Matthew Ryan JerryVanoverv. The STYLE: State ofTexas 

## PRQ5E FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: pxhs/ptf/f JUDGE: 

### CCtA^t^tt^L. Petition CCA#: 

# »3S3-W CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
* 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. 00-40548 Summary Calendar

WENDELL K. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus R. MILLER, Correctional Officer III; J. ALFORD, Warden; P. ADAMS, Property Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:97-CV-403

- - - - - - - - - - December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wendell K. Washington, a Texas prisoner (# 649796), appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), following a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). Washington alleged that the defendants improperly confiscated personal property from his cell in both September 1997 and January 1998. In an amended complaint, he also maintained that they filed a falseNo. 00-40548 -2- disciplinary charge against him in retaliation for, inter alia , his having filed the original complaint and that he was convicted of such charge in violation of his due process rights. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Washington’s claims were frivolous. See Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). Washington failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim regarding the deprivation of his property because Texas provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy. See Murphy v. Collins , 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994). Because of the confusing and inconsistent nature of the cumulative allegations he has made in support of his retaliation claim, Washington failed to establish a “chronology of events” from which a retaliatory motive could be inferred. See Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1164-66 (5th Cir. 1995). Finally, insofar as Washington has asserted that his due process rights were violated at his disciplinary hearing, the punishments imposed for the purported disciplinary violation did not implicate a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Luken v.
Scott , 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
No. 48126.

#### Protest 56366-K of Nathan Schecter (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the wreaths in question are similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Minami*(29 C. C. P. A. 169, C. A. D. 188). The protest was therefore sustained as to this item.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT  OF  OPERATIONS  FOR  THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        4478
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                53567
<ALLOWANCES>                                  1273
<INVENTORY>                                  28041
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             92615
<PP&E>                                      325328
<DEPRECIATION>                               32418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              414928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        56591
<BONDS>                                     160312
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       149
<OTHER-SE>                                  142364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                414928
<SALES>                                     298181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            298181
<CGS>                                       213677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               258563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               307
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           16042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              23269
<INCOME-TAX>                                  8499
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          14197
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (264)
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 13933
<EPS-BASIC>                                 1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.16


</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9589)

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co., c/o F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 241, etc.

(Decided February 11, 1960)

*Lane, Young <& Lote*for the plaintiff.

*George Goehr an Loub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have *564been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the above appeals for reappraisement consists of bamboo blinds and sets of hardware accessories imported from Japan; and that each bamboo ■blind, as invoiced, is accompanied by one set of hardware accessories.

> That on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise hereinbefore described, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States,-including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, at the invoice unit values; that said unit values include the cost of the sets of hardware accessories, which cost is 3 cents (U.S. Oy) per set of hardware accessories; and that there was no higher foreign value.

> That the above appeals" for reappraisement are limited to the merchandise hereinbefore described and are abandoned as to all other merchandise; and that said appeals may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that-the proper basis for. appraisement of the bamboo blinds and sets of hardware accessories in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the invoice unit values, which include the cost of the sets of hardware accessories, the cost thereof being 3 cents (United States currency) per set of hardware accessories.

As to all other merchandise, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case No. 9,231.

#### MASON et al v. The BLAIREAU.

[See Case No. 9.230.]
VSE Corporation Form 10-Q September 30, 2010




Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of VSE Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the best of the undersigned's knowledge:
 
 
 1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (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 Company's Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: October 29, 2010
/s/ M. A. GauthierM. A. GauthierChief Executive Officer, Presidentand Chief Operating Officer
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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Toreador Resources Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that: the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

Dated: May 11, 2009/s/ CRAIG M. MCKENZIE Craig M. McKenzie President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: May 11, 2009/s/ CHARLES J. CAMPISE Charles J. Campise Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not 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.

---



QuickLinks
# C_2015096EN.01002601.xml

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/26

---

Action brought on 12 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-4/15)

(2015/C 096/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Commission decisions to apply to the applicants’ salaries and pensions the adjustments provided under Regulation Nos 422/2014 and 423/2014 respectively for the years 2011 and 2012 and the claim for damages for the material loss suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as it is necessary, the decisions rejecting the claims; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as it is necessary, the decisions rejecting the claims;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of their salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, in damages for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, from the date of the judgment to be delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of their salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, in damages for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1953

TYRONE HURT,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-1958

TYRONE HURT,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS; INTERNATIONAL PEACE COURT; 

THE NATIONAL GUARDS; CHIEF OF POLICE, across this nation,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:15-cv-00193-BO; 5:15-cv-00326-BO)

Submitted: January 11, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2016

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Hurt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Hurt appeals the district court’s orders dismissing 

these civil actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Hurt v. United States, Nos. 5:15-cv-00193-BO;

5:15-cv-00326-BO (E.D.N.C. July 1 & Aug. 11, 2015). We 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
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 Report of Competitive Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September  30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Johnnie D. Johnson, 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:  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/ Johnnie D. Johnson Johnnie D. Johnson Chief Executive Officer  November 14, 2011  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Competitive Technologies and will be retained by Competitive Technologies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. QUANN WHITE, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 933 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 17th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
### Water resources of the Buffalo-Niagara Falls region

By: Charles William ReckEdward Taber Simmons

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir173

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****� The Clinton email scandal and the FBI�s investigation of it : aninterim report [electronic resource].**
interim-report|AppendixC|AppendixC- Documents|
 
SuDoc Number:Y 4.G 74/9:C 61

Item Number: 1037-D (online)

CGP systemNumber:001083859 
October 29, 2018