alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6589
WILLIAM CHARLES COOK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RAYMOND SMITH; WICK SOUTHERN, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-96-259-5-BO) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 2, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Charles Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cook v. Smith , No. CA-96-259-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 1996).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.

AFFIRMED
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0236 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-184-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 2013-0210

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.5


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                        INTEGRATED SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.


         Integrated Security Systems, Inc., a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"), does hereby certify that:

         FIRST:  The name of the Corporation is Integrated Security Systems,
Inc.

         SECOND: The Board of Directors of the Corporation, by the unanimous
written consent of its members, adopted a resolution proposing and declaring
advisable that the number of authorized shares of the Corporation's Common
Stock, par value $.01 per share, be increased from 30,000,000 shares to
35,000,000 by adopting the following amendment to the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation:

                  Article FOURTH shall be amended in its entirety as follows:

                  "FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which the
         Corporation shall have authority to issue is 35,750,000 shares, of
         which 35,000,000 shares shall be Common Stock, par value $.01 per share
         ("Common Stock"), and 750,000 shares shall be Preferred Stock, par
         value $.01 per share ("Preferred Stock")."

         THIRD: The resolution adopted by the Board of Directors has been duly
adopted by vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding Common Stock at
a Special Meeting of Stockholders called and held in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 211 and 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware, as an amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation.

         FOURTH: The aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. has caused this
certificate to be signed by its President and attested to by its Secretary, as
of December 17, 1999.

                                   INTEGRATED SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.


                                   By:   /s/ Gerald K. Beckmann
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Gerald K. Beckmann
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Joseph MUDARRI and Sophie Mudarri, his wife; and Salim Mudarri and Weedad Mudarri, his wife, Appellants, v. David GILLESPIE, Wometco Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Security Mutual Insurance Company of New York, a foreign corporation, Appellees.

No. 67-342.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 24, 1969.

Thomas A. Horkan, Jr., Dunn & Johnson, Miami, for appellants.

Lane, French, Primm, Lane & Carrier, Bernstein, Hodsdon & Tannen, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM:

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on February 27, 1968 (207 So.2d 482) affirming the order of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed September 24, 1969, 226 So.2d 808 and mandate dated November 3, 1969, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment;

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on March 15, 1968 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed February 27, 1968 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the order of the trial court appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to proceed in accordance with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmy Earl MAY.

No. 60100.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 6, 1977.

In re: Jimmy Earl May, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for stay order.

*333Writ granted. Evidentiary hearing is ordered to determine whether or not defendant waived counsel at the time of his first conviction in view of the discrepancy in minutes of trial court contained in the record.

TATE, J.

I respectfully dissent. The only proof of the first D.W.I. conviction is a minute entry which does not affirmatively show that the accused was represented by (or waived) counsel. Therefore he could not constitutionally be subject to enhanced punishment as a second offender, *Loper v. Beto,*405 U.S. 473,92 S.Ct. 1014, 31 L.Ed.2d 374 (1972) and *City of Monroe v. Coleman,*304 So.2d 332 (La.1974). The applicant is entitled to have vacated his conviction, which (on the face of the trial record) unconstitutionally imposed and enhanced his punishment as a second offender.
Exhibit 99.1


                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b)  of  Section  1350,  Chapter  63 of  Title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned officer of The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (the "Company")  certifies
to his knowledge that:

     (1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
          June 14, 2003 (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  condition 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. Cahill
                                                       ------------------
                                                       John T. Cahill
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                                       July 25, 2003

The foregoing  certification  (the  "Certification")  is being furnished  solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

A signed original of the Certification has been provided to the Company and will
be retained  by the Company in  accordance  with Rule  12b-11(d)  of the Act and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2127 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2127

To redesignate the Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge in the State of 
   Virginia as the ``Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife 
                               Refuge''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 16, 2005

 Mr. Allen (for himself and Mr. Warner) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge in the State of 
   Virginia as the ``Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife 
                               Refuge''.

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

SECTION 1. ELIZABETH HARTWELL MASON NECK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

    (a) Redesignation.--The Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge in the 
State of Virginia shall be known and designated as the ``Elizabeth 
Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the refuge referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Elizabeth 
Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge.
                                 <all>
```
#### Dennis M. SKOP, by his father and next friend, Arthur U. Skop, and Arthur U. Skop, Individually, Appellants, v. Carl D. BROREIN and General Telephone Company of Florida, Inc., Appellees.

No. 68-207.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

April 16, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1969.

Levine & Freedman, Tampa, for appellants.

Marvin E. Barkin and Edward M. Waller, Jr., of Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of Sandford v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 916; Beikirch v. City of Jacksonville Beach, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 898; Smart v. Masker, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 414, and Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Helwig, Fla.App.1959, 103 So.2d 620.

PIERCE, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2


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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b)  of  Section  1350,  Chapter  63 of  Title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned officer of The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (the "Company")  certifies
to his knowledge that:

     (1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
          September  4,  2004  (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. Drewes
                                                    --------------------
                                                    Alfred H. Drewes
                                                    Senior Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    October 13, 2004

The foregoing  certification  (the  "Certification")  is being furnished  solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

A signed original of the Certification has been provided to the Company and will
be retained  by the Company in  accordance  with Rule  12b-11(d)  of the Act and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Tullys Coffee Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 28, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2004 (the Report), I, Kristopher S. Galvin, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting officer) of the Company, 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) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    KRISTOPHER S.
GALVIN                                                        
|Kristopher S. Galvin                                                               
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting officer)
|June 28, 2004
#### PIZZA PALACE OF MIAMI, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. Clifford RUSSELL et al., Respondents.

No. 40364.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 2, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed sua sponte.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 of KIT digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robin Smyth, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(3)
            The Report fully complies with
      the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and





(4)
            The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the
Company.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
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.





Date:
      November 22, 2010
                /s/ Robin SmythRobin
      Smyth
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2068 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 

Referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

AN ACT 

To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of 

the District of Columbia. 

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


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

S 2068 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. COMPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT. 

2 Section 903 of title 11 of the District of Columbia 

3 Code is amended by striking ‘‘fifty-eight’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘61’’. 

Passed the Senate August 3, 2006. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
#### Willie LEWIS v. STATE.

No. 38943.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 225 So.2d 170.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Richard Denison and Lindsay McCormick 

Environmental Defense Fund (EDP) 

187 5 Connecticut Ave N W #600 

Washington, DC 20009 

rden i !>OINt t:d l.org 

Dear Dr. Denison and Ms. McCormick. 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

Thank you for your letter of December 14. 20 15 supporting the Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense 

Council 's (NRDC) request for a 45-day extension of the current 120-day public comment period for EPA's 

TSCA Work Pl an Chemical Problem Formulation and Data Needs Assessment for the Brominated 

Phtha lates Cluster and request for the release of additional information. 

At your request, on December 17, 2015, and January 7, 2016, EPA convened a conference call with 

representatives from EDF to discuss data availability. EPA described the source(s) of available data it relied 

on and summarized in the Data Needs Assessment and how this information cross-walks with information 

for PMN P-04-0404 and data submitted by Chemtura in 20 12. In a subsequent email, EPA a lso referenced 

recent in formation submitted by Chemtura to the docket for the Data Needs Assessment indicating the 

nature of the chemicals subject to the testing referenced in the 20 12 letter from Chemtura. 

EPA is denying the request to extend the comment period for the Data Needs Assessment documents 

because the documents are short. do not include detailed analyses and as explained during the December 

conference call. EPA included summaries of all available information in the Data Needs Assessment and 

Technical Supplements. However, while the comment period closed on December 16, 20 15, EPA will 

review and respond to all comments received up to and including January 20, 20 16. 

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Stanley Bar 1e 

Deputy Division Director 

Risk Assessment Di vision (7403M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Internet Address (URL) • http //WNW epa gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Pronted w1th Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlorone Free Recycled Paper
#### Ex parte Willie James BARNES.

77-702.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 18, 1978.

EMBRY, Judge.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.
Citations are generated automatically from uncorrected OCR'd text. 

Federal Register Library Volume 48 - HeinOnline.org Page 1 of 2

http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.fedreg/048105&id=1&size=2&collec... 11/14/2013
Due to OCR errors and text variations, some citations may not be listed or listed correctly. 

Citations which are identifiable in HeinOnline are presented as links.

Federal Register Library Volume 48 - HeinOnline.org Page 2 of 2

http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.fedreg/048105&id=1&size=2&collec... 11/14/2013
 

Citations are generated automatically from uncorrected OCR'd text. 

Federal Register Library Volume 48 - HeinOnline.org Page 1 of 2

http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.fedreg/048105&id=1&size=2&collec... 11/14/2013
Due to OCR errors and text variations, some citations may not be listed or listed correctly. 

Citations which are identifiable in HeinOnline are presented as links.

Federal Register Library Volume 48 - HeinOnline.org Page 2 of 2

http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.fedreg/048105&id=1&size=2&collec... 11/14/2013
#### Stephen JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1416.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 30, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. However we agree with appellant that the phrase “at hard labor” in his sentence is improper. *Brooks v. State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, we remand the case in order for the trial court to correct the sentence, and appellant need not be present at that time.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
#### James H. LACEY v. STATE of Florida.

No. 39132.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 227 So.2d 90.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6637

DANIEL ORIAKHI,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-00271-MJG)

Submitted: August 20, 2013 Decided: September 9, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Oriakhi appeals the district court’s orders

denying his coram nobis petition and denying his motion for 

extension of time. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Oriakhi v. United States, No. 1:13-cv00271-MJG (D. Md. Feb. 12 & Mar. 18, 2013). We deny Oriakhi’s 

motion for appointment of counsel. 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