alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6008

CRAIG ARRON HOOPER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-379-3) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 29, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig Arron Hooper, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Craig Arron Hooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) and denying his fourth motion for an extension of time in which to file a response to the State’s motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hooper v. Angelone , No. CA-01-379-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 28, 2001). We deny Hooper’s motion for transcripts at Government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
<CASH>                                          81,330
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,330
<PP&E>                                             970
<DEPRECIATION>                                      75
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,668
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           173
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,710
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,551
<SALES>                                          2,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,615
<CGS>                                            1,332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (112)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (358)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (161)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (197)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Squire Sanders (US) LLP 1200 19th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036
O +1 202 626 6600 F +1 202 626 6780 squiresanders.com

Edward W. Sauer T +1 202 626 6641 edward.sauer@squiresanders.com

37 Offices in 18 Countries Squire Sanders (US) LLP is part of the international legal practice Squire Sanders which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit squiresanders.com for more information. 

### May 30, 2012 Ms. Angelia Ames Docket Operations Office of the Secretary of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Docket OST-2012-0082 Application of Miami Air International for an Emergency Exemption Dear Ms. Ames: I am writing to you as counsel to Alaska Airlines, Inc. (“Alaska”) in response to the application of Miami Air International cited above. Under most circumstances Alaska would object to an application for an exemption from the prohibition in Part 212.3 (l) regarding intra-Alaska passenger charters. However, since the requested exemption is to provide highly specialized passenger lift for Shell's important Beaufort Sea oil exploration program, one which Alaska strongly supports, Alaska does not object subject to two conditions which comport with Miami Air's described operation: (i) The exemption should be granted for a period of not more than 179 days duration; and 

### (ii) Miami Air International's charter operation should be limited to contracting with Shell Offshore, Inc. and/or Northern Aviation Services, Inc. for the operations described in the application.



### Sincerely yours,

Edward W. Sauer Cc: jamestello@earthlink.net (Miami Air International) recohn@hhlaw.com (Peninsula Airways)
Exhibit  32.2
                                                                  -------------

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Katharine Johnston, Principal Accounting Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.




         Dated: March 19, 2009                   /s/  Katharine Johnston
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Its: Principal Accounting Officer



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.
The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q-A solely
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) and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-Q-A or as a separate disclosure document.














                            Exhibit 32.2 - 1 - (27)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24232]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33447]


Omaha Public Power District--Acquisition Exemption--The 
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company

    Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), a noncarrier, has filed a 
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire 56.75 
miles of rail line (Acquired Line) and associated assets of The 
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) between 
milepost 56.30, at Collegeview, NE, and milepost 6.1, at Arbor, NE. In 
addition, OPPD will acquire 4.53 miles of incidental overhead trackage 
rights over the BNSF line from milepost 56.3, in the Nebraska City Sub-
division, and milepost 61.38, in the St. Joe Sub-Division.
    The transaction is expected to be consummated on or about October 
1, 1998.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ OPPD states that it does not intend to provide common 
carrier rail service on the Acquired Line and that common carrier 
service is expected to be provided by a third party to be selected 
by OPPD. OPPD indicates that the operator would file its own 
verified notice of exemption to permit it to operate over the line. 
BNSF will retain trackage rights over the Acquired Line to provide 
rail transportation service to OPPD until December 31, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the 
transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33447, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Thomas W. Wilcox, Esq., Donelan, Cleary, Wood & Maser, P.C., 
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 750, Washington, DC 20005.

    Decided: September 4, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24232 Filed 9-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
EXHIBIT 32


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of International Commercial Television
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Kelvin  Claney,  President  and  Chief  Executive Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ' 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

(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.

     /s/ Kelvin Claney
----------------------------------------
Kelvin Claney, President & Chief Executive Officer
November  12,  2003





In  connection with the Quarterly Report of International Commercial Television,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Patrick  Lavin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  '  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that,  to  the  best of my knowledge and belief:

(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.

     /s/ Patrick Lavin
----------------------------------------
Patrick  Lavin,  Chief  Financial  Officer
November  12,  2003


                                    Page 31
<PAGE>
No. 00-7230.

#### Guller *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-27-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-28-2000
<CASH>                                          93,272
<SECURITIES>                                    90,152
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,639)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               223,348
<PP&E>                                          29,431
<DEPRECIATION>                                (16,136)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 423,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,045
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     351,283
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   423,335
<SALES>                                         26,709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,143
<CGS>                                            2,089
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               128,331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   190
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (91,071)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (91,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (91,071)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.41)


</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) SolPac Construction, Inc. d/b/a )

Soltek Pacific Construction Company ) ) Under Contract No. W912PL-10-D-0038 )
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61591

Kirk J. McCormick, Esq.

Ruberto, Israel & Weiner, P.C. Boston, MA Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney John F. Bazan, Esq.

EngineerTrial Attorney U.S. Army Engineer District

Los Angeles OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCNULTY 

### It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the parties' stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature ofa consentjudgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $1,550,000. This amount is inclusive ofinterest. No further interest shall be paid. Dated: February 28, 2019

(Signatures continued) 

# fl

# H _j__ /JJ1 11t 

# 1-l--:- 

# ll<l1:':::"-::£l, 

### /7[~.CCC CHRIS OPHER M. MCNU\TY Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI concur 

# I/\~ --=r~\/\

----------~-----------------------

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

# J~~ Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61591, Appeal ofSolPac Construction. Inc. d/b/a, Soltek Pacific Construction Company. rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
# Sustaining combat readiness, improving supply-chain management key topics at Army, DLA Day

/ Published May 14, 2018

Equipment modernization and inventory management topped the agenda during the spring Army/DLA Day at the Pentagon May 9.

The event, led by DLA Director Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams; Army Lt. Gen. Aundre Piggee, the service’s deputy chief of staff for logistics; and Army Materiel Command Deputy Commander Army Lt. Gen. Edward Daily, included officials from each of DLA’s major subordinate commands and Army logistics leaders. 

The group began with a review of the status of Army-owned inventory reductions at Fort Carson, Colorado, the operationalization of DLA weapon system support and Authorized Stockage List Implementation, all key action items generated during the previous Army/DLA Day held in September.

Michael Scott, deputy director of DLA Logistics Operations, gave a live presentation of the DLA Enterprise Dashboard, which provides a near-real time view of readiness rates for three air and 10 ground systems operated by the service. The Dashboard is a compilation of metrics from DLA systems and the Army’s common operation picture, and is expected to help officials improve readiness through close scrutiny of supply metrics like material availability and backorder statuses.

Attendees also received a financial overview detailing the $8,552 million worth of orders the service made in fiscal 2017 for everything from subsistence, medical supplies and repair parts to fuel and distribution and disposition services. The brief included a breakout of the service’s cost recovery rate, the fee DLA charges customers for supplies, materiel preparation and operating costs. The Army’s rate has decreased from 29 percent in fiscal 1991 to 11.6 percent in fiscal 2017 due to the agency’s focus on efficiency and effectiveness. 

The Army’s desire for improvements in administrative lead time for consumable items such as spare parts needed at depots like Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and Huntsville, Alabama, generated additional discussion. Transferring Army-managed consumables to DLA would allow the agency to leverage existing capabilities and would take advantage of DLA automation and its long-term contracts. The effort would also support Department of Defense audit goals.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTesting of YUH-61A helicopter transmission in NASA Lewis 2240-kW (3000-hp facilityA helicopter transmission that was being considered for the Army's Utility Tactical Transport Attack System (UTTAS) was tested in the NASA Lewis 2240-kW (3000-hp) test facility to obtain the transmission's operational data. The results will form a vibration and efficiency data base for evaluation similar-class helicopter transmissions. The transmission's mechanical efficiency was determined to be 98.7 percent at its rated power level of 2080 kW (2792 hp). At power levels up to 113 percent of rated the transmission displayed 56 percent higher vibration acceleration levels on the right input than on the left input. Both vibration signature analysis and final visual inspection indicated that the right input spiral-bevel gear had poor contact patterns. The highest vibration meter level was 52 g's rms at the accessory gear, which had free-wheeling gearsets. At 113 percent power and 100 percent rated speed the vibration meter levels generally ranged from 3 to 25 g's rms.Document ID19860015521Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsMitchell, A. M.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Oswald, F. B.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Schuller, F. T.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1986Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.60:2538E-2801NASA-TP-2538Accession Number86N24992Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-51Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860015521.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Joseph MATASSA, Jr., Owner and Operator of Sears Authorized Catalog Sale Merchant No. 17415 v. Simple TEMPLE and Laurie Aucoin.

No. 60104.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 6, 1977.

In re: Laurie Aucoin applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Assumption, 346 So.2d 803.

Writ denied. No error of law in the Court of Appeal judgment.

TATE, DIXON and DENNIS, JJ., dissent from the denial of this application.
EXHIBIT 12.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

     I, Linton W. P. Burns, certify that:

     1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Progen Industries
Limited;

     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; and

     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 company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4.     The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company 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
          company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

          (b)      Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure
          controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
          about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
          of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
          evaluation; and

          (c)      Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
          covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control
          over financial reporting; and

     5.          The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's
board of directors:

          (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 company's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


<PAGE>
          (b)      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
          or other employees who have a significant role in the company's
          internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 16, 2004
      -----------------
                                             /s/ Linton W. P. Burns
                                             -----------------------
                                             Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>