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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6916

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ISADORE LAMONT LAMKIN, a/k/a LL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00852-MJP-1; 3:07-cv-70035-MJP)

Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 7, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isadore Lamont Lamkin, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Isadore Lamont Lamkin seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Lamkin has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22777]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3974-000]


Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Filing

August 21, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 30, 1997, Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
(PG&E) tendered for filing (1) an agreement dated February 5, 1997, by 
and between PG&E and Pan Energy Trading and Market Services, L.L.C. 
(Pan Energy) entitled Service Agreement for Firm Point-to-Point 
Transmission Service (Firm Transmission Service Agreement); and (2) an 
agreement dated October 21, 1996, by and between PG&E and Pan Energy, 
entitled Service Agreement for Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission 
Service (Non-firm Service Agreement); and (3) a Notice of Termination 
for the Firm Transmission Service Agreement.
    The Firm Transmission Service Agreement was entered into for the 
purpose of providing firm point-to-point transmission service for 50 MW 
of power delivered to Pan Energy or its customers at Los Angeles 
Department of Water and Power's Sylmar Substation. The effective date 
of termination is either the requested date shown below or such other 
date the Commission deems appropriate for termination.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Requested    
        Service agreement                Term         effective date for
                                                          termination   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 5, 1997--Service         July 1, 1997        September 30,     
 Agreement under FERC Electric     through September   1997.            
 Tariff, Original Volume No. 3.    30, 1997.                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PG&E proposes the Non Firm Transmission Service Agreement become 
effective on July 1, 1997. Copies of this filing have been served upon 
the California Public Utilities Commission and Pan Energy.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 285.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before September 2, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22777 Filed 8-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22906]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board Task Force on Stealth Technology and Future 
S&T Investments

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Stealth Technology and 
Future S&T Investments will meet in closed session on September 25-26, 
October 14, November 20-21, and December 3-4, 1997 at Science 
Applications International Corporation, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Task Force will explore the relationship between low observable and 
electronic warfare technologies in providing future weapon system 
survivability.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly these 
meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: August 25, 1997.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-22906 Filed 8-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Michael R. Silberstein d/b/a Michael R. Silberstein Investments, Ltd.

v. Gloria Lewis

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00294

- CV

Trial court case number: 15

- DCV

- 220243

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

T he clerk’s record filed in this Court shows that Appellant, Michael R. Silberstein, timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law and filed a notice of past

- due findings of f

act and conclusions of law. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 296, 297. The record, however, does not include the requested findings and conclusions. Acting sua sponte , we abate this appeal, remand the case to the trial court , and direct the court to file its findings of fact and

conclusions of law. Id .; see also W hite v. Harris

- White

, No. 01

- 07

- 00521

- CV, 2009 WL 1493015, at *6 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] May 28, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding remedy for trial court’s failure to file findings of fac t and conclusions of law is to abate appeal and remand to trial court).

Within ten days after the trial court has filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, any party may file a request for specified additional or amended findings or conclusions.

Id. 298. The trial court shall file any additional or amended findings that are appropriate within ten days after such a request is filed. Id.

The trial court clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the

trial court’s findings of f act and conclusions of law , any request for additional findings, and any additional findings of fact and conclusions of law within 30 days of the date of this

order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed f rom this Court’s active

docke t.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

Acting Individually

Date: March 15, 2018
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1768 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. FEINGOLD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 45 of title 28, United 

5 States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘§ 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings 

8 ‘‘The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage 

9 of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, 

10 by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such 

11 coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation 
2 

•S 1768 IS

1 of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before 

2 the Court.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The chapter analysis 

4 for chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

5 by inserting at the end the following: 

‘‘678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.’’. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22914]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. EC97-5-000, ER97-412-000 and ER97-413-000]


Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Cleveland 
Electric Illuminating Company, and The Toledo Edison Company; Notice of 
Compliance Filing and Notice Shortening Comment Date on Compliance 
Filing

August 22, 1997.
    On August 8, 1997, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, 
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and the Toledo Edison 
Company (hereinafter Applicants) filed a motion requesting a thirty-day 
comment period on the compliance filing the Applicants made on August 
8, 1997, in accordance with the Commission's Order Accepting For Filing 
And Suspending Proposed Tariffs, Establishing Optional Procedures And 
Consolidating Dockets issued July 16, 1997, in the above-docketed 
proceedings. The compliance filing includes proposed Mitigation 
Measures and attachments, a revised Appendix A screen analysis, and 
supporting testimony.
    In their motion, Applicants state that a thirty-day comment period 
will afford any interested participants a sufficient opportunity to 
comment on the compliance filing and will permit the Commission to 
resolve competition issues without unnecessary delay and accord 
ratepayers the opportunity to begin to achieve cost savings. On August 
11, August 14, and August 18, 1997, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, the 
Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc., Buckeye Power, Inc., the 
Empowerment Center of Greater Cleveland, the Cleveland Housing Network, 
the Western Reserve Alliance, and the Public Utilities Commission of 
Ohio filed answers in support of the Applicants' motion. On August 12, 
1997, the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio filed an answer in opposition to 
the Applicant's request.
    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the Applicants' 
motion requesting a thirty-day comment period is granted in part. 
Comments on the Applicant's compliance filing shall be filed on or 
before September 22, 1997.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22914 Filed 8-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000005906-JUN-201208:23 AM
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Niku Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended April 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joshua Pickus, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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. that information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Niku
Corporation for the period covered by the Report.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 14, 2004 |  | /S/ JOSHUA PICKUS      
|                     |  | Joshua Pickus          
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to Section 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 Section 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 Niku Corporation and will be retained by Niku Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 4:05-cv-00301-JEJ Document 14 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-00301-JEJ Document 14 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-00301-JEJ Document 14 Filed 07/11/05 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-00301-JEJ Document 14 Filed 07/11/05 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-00301-JEJ Document 14 Filed 07/11/05 Page 5 of 5
Addendum to Technology Transfer Agreement

         THIS  ADDENDUM  made and  entered  into this 14th day of August,  2000,
amends the original Agreement dated 7 August 2000 (hereinafter "said Agreement")
by and between Global Network Media, Inc., a Colorado  corporation  currently in
good standing (hereinafter "GNM") and Mind2Market,  Inc., a Colorado corporation
currently in good standing  (hereinafter  ("M2M").  This  Addendum  modifies the
terms and  conditions  under  which GNM will  grant to M2M  exclusive  rights to
certain patent-pending technology as set forth in said Agreement, to wit:

        1.  The provisions of paragraph 17 of the said Agreement are modified as
            follows:
                  The  additional  funding  in excess of the  original  $100,000
                  committed  for  the  manufacturing,   marketing,   management,
                  customer  service and continued  development  of the Emergency
                  Signal  Balloon  (ESB)  product(s)  shall  be  made  available
                  according to the  following  criteria:  Funds from  additional
                  capital  funding  raised  for M2M over  and  above  the  first
                  million  shall be committed  toward ESB promotion in an amount
                  that matches  revenues  from sales of the ESB product line, up
                  to an  additional  $300,000  but  not to  exceed  10% of  said
                  additional capital funding raised to date.

        2.  All  other  terms of said Agreement shall  remain   unchanged and in
            effect unless further modified by both parties as provided therein.

        3.  THIS ADDENDUM IS EXECUTED PURSUANT  TO AND SHALL BE  INTERPRETED AND
            GOVERNED FOR ALL PURPOSES  BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF  COLORADO FOR
            WHICH THE COURTS IN DENVER, COLORADO SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION WITHOUT
            GIVING EFFECT TO THE CHOICE OR LAWS OR CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES THERE-
            OF OR OF ANY STATE.


MIND2MARKET, INC.                          GLOBAL NETWORK MEDIA, INC.

   /s/ Ronald Powell                            /s/ James R. Clark
By ------------------------------------    By ----------------------------------

      President                                 President
Its: ----------------------------------    Its:---------------------------------



Agreement - Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
September 3, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods referred to in the Form 10-Q.
 /s/ John T. CahillJohn T. CahillChief Executive OfficerOctober 6, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1726 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1726

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 324 Main Street in Grambling, Louisiana, as the ``Coach Eddie 
                    Robinson Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2005

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 324 Main Street in Grambling, Louisiana, as the ``Coach Eddie 
                    Robinson Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COACH EDDIE ROBINSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 324 Main Street in Grambling, Louisiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Coach Eddie Robinson Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Coach 
Eddie Robinson Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered September 24, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00520
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF Z .C.M., M.R.M. , AND E.P.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. DF
- 13
- 22954



### O RDER
Before the Court is the September 17, 2015 motion of court reporter Shantel Beheler for an extension of time to file the reporter’ s record . In her motion, Ms. Beheler recites the following pertinent facts: I received payment f

rom Appellant yesterday, September 16, 2015, for a partial record of two witnesses (direct examination only). Mr. Harter, counsel for appellee, requested that his cross

- examination of the witnesses and exhibits be submitted also. I have requested that [a ppellant] pay for the remaining pages to be included. According to T.R.A.P. 34.6(c), [appellant] is responsible for the cost. He has refused and has told me to just file the direct examination of the two witnesses. On Sept ember 23, 2015, we received the reporter’s record. It contains the direct testimony of
two witnesses and four exhibits. The reporter’s record does not include the cross

- examination testimony of the two witnesses. We GRANT Ms. Beheler’s motion and ORDER the reporter’s
record tendered to this Court on September 23, 2015 filed as of that date. Because appellant hasrefused to pay for the portions of the record requested by appellee, we ORDER the appeal

submitted on the incomplete reporter’s record. Appellant’s brief is due MONDAY, OC TOBER 26, 2015

. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic transmission to Ms. Beheler and all parties.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Central Bancorp, 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.
    
    The registrant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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ John D. DohertyJohn D. DohertyChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2003

AN ACT

To make permanent the authorization for watershed

restoration and enhancement agreements.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Watershed Restoration

5 and Enhancement Agreements Act of 2006’’.
 †

2

S 2003 ES

1 SEC. 2. WATERSHED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT

2 AGREEMENTS.

3 Section 323 of the Department of the Interior and

4 Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (16 U.S.C.

5 1011 note; Public Law 105–277), is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘each of fiscal

7 years 2006 through 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal year

8 2006 and each fiscal year thereafter’’;

9 (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub10 section (e); and

11 (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol12 lowing:

13 ‘‘(d) APPLICABLE LAW.—Chapter 63 of title 31,

14 United States Code, shall not apply to—

15 ‘‘(1) a watershed restoration and enhancement

16 agreement entered into under this section; or

17 ‘‘(2) an agreement entered into under the first

18 section of Public Law 94–148 (16 U.S.C. 565a–1).’’.

Passed the Senate December 7, 2006.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2003

AN ACT

To make permanent the authorization for watershed restoration and enhancement agreements.