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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDRE D. WHITFIELD,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00300-HEH-1; 3:17-cv-00665-

HEH)

Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 28, 2017

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre D. Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andre D. Whitfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Whitfield 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 before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 31, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-00152-CV LESTER JON RUSTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366-81291-01 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis Opinion by Chief Justice Wright By letter dated June 21, 2013, we questione d our jurisdiction over this appeal. Specifically, we informed appellant that the Col lin County District Clerk, in response to a notice that the clerk’s record was overdue, notified the Court that no documents had been filed in this case pursuant to an administra tive order regarding documents submitted by appellant to the district clerk’s office. The ad ministrative order, signed by th e local administrative judge for Collin County on January 25, 2013, provides that appe llant was declared a vexatious litigant on June 14, 2007 and attempted to file a petition for a writ of error. After reviewing the documents submitted by appellant, the administrative judge determined the documents were submitted without obtaining permission from the court as provided by the June 14, 2007 order and that the claims contained in the submitted documents did not set forth a legitimate request for relief. Therefore the administrative judge ordered the Co llin County District Clerk’s office not to file–2– the documents and to return them to appellant. Thereafter, on February 1, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal “pursuant to ar ticle 44.02” of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. (Article 44.02 deals with the right of a criminal defendant to appeal in a criminal matter.) By letter dated June 21, 2013, we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal. We directed appellant to file a letter brief within twenty days regarding the jurisdictional issue. To date, appellant has not filed a letter brief or otherwise corresponde d with the Court regarding this appeal

. Because appellant filed a notice of appeal a nd did not apply for a writ of mandamus, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE 11.102 (c) (West Supp. 2012) (decision of local administrative judge denying permission to f ile litigation is not ground for appeal, except that litigant may apply for writ of mandamus with the court of appeals not later than the 30 th day after the date of the decision).

130152F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
LESTER JON RUSTON, Appellant
No. 05-13-00152-CV V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366-81291-01. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers a nd Lewis participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee THE STATE OF TEXAS recover its costs of this appeal from appellant LESTER JON RUSTON.
Judgment entered July 31, 2013

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit  32.1
                                                                  -------------

                                 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-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Penny
Perfect, Chief Executive 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: May 11, 2006                    /s/ Penny Perfect
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Its: Chief Executive 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-QSB 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-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.











                                     32.1-1
# Úradný vestník C 104I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 104I |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Ročník 6426. marca 2021 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 104I

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Ročník 6426. marca 2021

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informácie |
| | INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2021/C 104 I/01 | Vysvetlivky ku kombinovanej nomenklatúre Európskej únie | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

IV   Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

2021/C 104 I/01

Vysvetlivky ku kombinovanej nomenklatúre Európskej únie

1

---

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

IV Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

| 26.3.2021 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CI 104/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2021

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CI 104/1

---

Vysvetlivky ku kombinovanej nomenklatúre Európskej únie

(2021/C 104 I/01)

Podľa článku 9 ods. 1 písm. a) nariadenia Rady (EHS) č. 2658/87 (1) sa vysvetlivky ku kombinovanej nomenklatúre Európskej únie (2) týmto menia takto:

Na strane 369

vo vysvetlivke k podpoložke 8543 70 90 sa vypúšťa druhý odsek.

Na strane 416

vo vysvetlivke k podpoložke 9506 69 90 sa druhý a tretí odsek vypúšťajú a nahrádzajú takto:

„Táto podpoložka však nezahŕňa tzv. antistresové loptičky, ktoré majú tvar loptičky a môžu byť zdobené rôznym vzorom. Zvyčajne sú vyrobené z plastu alebo kaučuku a sú určené na opakované stláčanie v ruke ako antistresové cvičenie. „Antistresové loptičky“ a podobné „antistresové predmety“ rôznych tvarov a vzorov sú zatriedené do položky 9503.

---

(1)  Nariadenie Rady (EHS) č. 2658/87 z 23. júla 1987 o colnej a štatistickej nomenklatúre a o Spoločnom colnom sadzobníku (Ú. v. ES L 256, 7.9.1987, s. 1).

(2)  Ú. v. EÚ C 119, 29.3.2019, s. 1.

---
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 the requirement set forth in
Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Harry F. Hixson Jr., Chief Executive Officer of
Sequenom, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act, and

2. The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

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 (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Quarterly Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 5th day of May, 2011.

/s/ HARRY F. HIXSON,
JR.Harry F. Hixson, Jr.Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23488]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, September 25, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference 
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-23488 Filed 8-29-97; 1:18 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 22, 2008
(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/ Alfred H. DrewesAlfred H. DrewesSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
April 29, 2008
Exhibit 32.3

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 Annual Report of Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings, L.P. on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Juliano, Chief Executive Officer, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 16, 2009



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ Mark Juliano                          
|Mark Juliano                              
|Chief Executive Officer                   
|Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings, L.P.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                         2,246,926
<SECURITIES>                                   000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,444
<INVENTORY>                                    000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,526,618
<PP&E>                                         22,429,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                 000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 25,007,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          800,899
<BONDS>                                        000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          000
<PREFERRED>                                    000
<COMMON>                                       000
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,600,659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   25,007,249
<SALES>                                        000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,787,987
<CGS>                                          000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,806,018
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,747,214
<INCOME-TAX>                                   000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,747,214
<DISCONTINUED>                                 000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                000
<CHANGES>                                      000
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,747,214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  14.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  14.89
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 15

                           Accountants' Acknowledgment


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.:

The Owners of
Bottling Group, LLC:

With respect to the  registration  statements  listed below,  we acknowledge our
awareness  of the use therein of our reports  dated July 8, 2003  related to our
reviews of interim financial information.

  o  Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999         (File No. 333-79357)
  o  Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999         (File No. 333-79369)
  o  Form S-8 dated May 27, 1999         (File No. 333-79375)
  o  Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999         (File No. 333-79365)
  o  Form S-8 dated June 14, 1999        (File No. 333-80647)
  o  Form S-8 dated May 8, 2001          (File No. 333-60428)
  o  Form S-8 dated September 19, 2001   (File No. 333-69622)
  o  Form S-8 dated November 14, 2001    (File No. 333-73302)
  o  Form S-8 dated October 28, 2002     (File No. 333-100786)

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the  Securities  Act of 1933 (the Act),  such reports
are not considered part of a registration  statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or reports prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
July 25, 2003
#### SWAN F. HJELM v. WESTERN GRANITE CONTRACTING COMPANY.1

December 20, 1907.

Nos. 15,473—(134).

Action in the district court for Stearns county to recover $10,113 for personal injuries. After the order denying a new trial was reversed upon the second appeal (see 98 Minn. 222) the case was tried before Taylor, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $9,000. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and granting a new trial, unless plaintiff would consent to a reduction of the verdict to $6,500, (which consent was given), defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

*Stewart & Brower*and *Reynolds & Roeser,*for appellants.

*Ludwig Aretander*and *S. S. Loelce,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 114 N. W. 1131,

PER CURIAM.

This case was before us on two former appeals: 94 Minn. 169 and 98 Minn. 222. ■ The law of the case was there fully covered and the rights of the parties determined. The last trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appealed from an order denying. its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

A careful examination of the record discloses no reversible error. The evidence fully supports the verdict, and though some minor errors may have occurred in the rulings of the court below during the trial, we discover none of a substantial or prejudicial nature. The only ruling approaching substantial error was in overruling defendant’s objection to a hypothetical question put to one of plaintiff’s witnesses. Conceding that the question included a fact not in evidence, and therefore objectionable, no prejudice resulted from the answer. It stands admitted that plaintiff was injured by a flying rock from a blast prematurely exploded, and the fact that the hypothetical question included a statement relative to the strength of the dynamite used, hence capable of throwing the rock to the point where plaintiff was standing at the time of the explosion, was harmless. Whatever may have been the strength of the dynamite, the flying rock reached plaintiff and he was injured.

We have considered fully all the assignments of error and find no ground upon which to predicate a reversal of the order appealed from and it is affirmed.
[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:Sources of human-related injury and mortality for U.S. Pacific west coastmarine mammal stock assessments**
 
2007-11 | 2008-12 | 2009-13 | 2010-14 | 2011-15
2012-16 | 2013-17 | 2014-18 | 2015-19 | 2016-20
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.13/2:NMFS-SWFSC/H 88/
Item Number:0208-C-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001052858
 
May 15, 2018
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY D. HILL :

: Case No. 4:05-CV-1229

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

: (Judge McClure)

EVELYN DERRICK, :

RICHARD SUTTON, :

JANE STUGART-OTTERBEIN, :

AND LORI CRESSMAN, :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

November 3, 2005

BACKGROUND:

On June 20, 2005, plaintiff Jeffrey D. Hill, commenced the instant litigation

by filing a pro se complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The complaint

arises out of plaintiff’s banishment from the Muncy Public Library. By separate

order entered today, we granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, but allowed

plaintiff’s section 1983 claims, liberally construed as alleging violations of the First

and Fourteenth Amendments, to remain against defendants Derrick and Cressman. 

On September 22, 2005, while defendants’ motion was pending before this court,

and not yet ripe for our decision, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a motion

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 21 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 3
2

for summary judgment. Hill’s motion for summary judgment argues that

defendant’s motion to dismiss constitutes an admission and that therefore he is

entitled to summary judgment in his favor. For the following reasons we will deny

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, without prejudice.

DISCUSSION:

I. LEGAL STANDARD

It is appropriate for a court to grant a motion for summary judgment “if the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together

with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the moving party is entitled a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s core grievance is his banishment from the Muncy Public

Library. Hill’s motion for summary judgment is premature, as the parties are not

done filing their pleadings, and discovery has not commenced. Hill has attempted

to use defendant’s motion to dismiss as grounds for summary judgment. The legal

posture of a motion to dismiss requires the court to consider all of the allegations in

the complaint as if they were true. At the summary judgment stage, however, the

moving party must come forward with uncontroverted admissible evidence that

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 21 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 3
3

demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The court will set a

summary judgment deadline in a forthcoming scheduling order. At that time, Hill

may again file a motion for summary judgment. We remind the litigants of Local

Rule 56.1's requirement that a motion for summary judgment be accompanied by a

concise statement of material facts that is supported with citations to the record. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied, without prejudice. (Rec.

Doc. No. 10.)

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 21 Filed 11/03/05 Page 3 of 3