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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6146

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. RODNEY EDWARD WALL, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:99-24-9, a/k/a Big Rodney, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9)

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Edward Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Rodney Edward Wall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) 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); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Wall’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain

23 authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2008). Wall’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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
Exhibit 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 13, 2009
(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/ Eric J. FossEric J. FossChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive OfficerJuly 14, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1876 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1876

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To provide that attorneys employed by the Department of Justice shall 
be eligible for compensatory time off for travel under section 5550b of 
                      title 5, United States Code.

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

SECTION 1. COMPENSATORY TIME OFF FOR TRAVEL.

    (a) In General.--Attorneys employed by the Department of Justice 
(including assistant United States attorneys) shall be eligible for 
compensatory time off for travel under section 5550b of title 5, United 
States Code, without regard to any provision of section 115 of the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
1000(a)(1) of Public Law 106-113 and reenacted by section 111 of the 
Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by 
appendix B of Public Law 106-553)).
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to time 
spent in travel status on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

            Passed the Senate December 6, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1876

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To provide that attorneys employed by the Department of Justice shall 
be eligible for compensatory time off for travel under section 5550b of 
                      title 5, United States Code.
```
Exhibit 32




In connection with the Quarterly Report of International Commercial Television, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Kelvin Claney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard Ransom, 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 their 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 ClaneyKelvin Claney, Chief Executive Officer/s/ Richard RansomRichard Ransom, Chief Financial Officer




Date: May 28, 2010
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Theortic GIVENS.

No. 60739.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 1978.

Patrick D. McArdle, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF MIAMI BEACH v. DADE COUNTY.

No. 38719.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 790.
Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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 report on Form 10-Q ofPlanktos
 Corp.for thequarterly
 period endedMarch 31, 2009
 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Michael
 James Gobuty, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906
 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | Thisreport 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 this report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant
for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:May20,
 2009





/s/
 Michael James Gobuty

Michael
 James Gobuty

Chief
 Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Thiscertification
 accompanies this report pursuant to §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
 registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing 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 this report),
 irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.   A signed original of this written
 statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant
 and will be retained by the registrant
 and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



25
#### Carroll OLLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-356.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 5, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and James A. Cornelius, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

The judgment and sentence, while indicating the appellant was to receive credit for all time served in jail, does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.-161(1), Florida Statutes (1975). *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).

Remanded for correction of sentence; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Order filed July 22, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-20-00225-CR

__________

ROCKY DEE HIDROGO, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 220th District Court

Comanche County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR03104

O R D E R

After a careful review of the record, Appellant, Rocky Dee Hidrogo, Jr.’s 

appointed counsel, E. Alan Bennett, determined that this appeal presents no issues of 

arguable merit. Mr. Bennett filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 385 U.S. 

738, 744 (1967), and a motion to withdraw. We grant the motion.

PER CURIAM

July 22, 2021

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
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-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
 Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, BROOKE
 STYBA, 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: July 30, 2004                 /s/  Brooke Styba
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              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-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.






                                      32.2-1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the prospectus
(the "Prospectus") constituting a part of the Registration Statement on Form
S-3, as amended (Registration No. 333-47577) filed by Queen Sand Resources,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, of information contained in our reserve reports relating to the
proved oil and natural gas reserves and future net revenues of oil and natural
gas reserves of the Company as of June 30, 1997 and 1998 (other than with
respect to the Morgan Properties (as defined in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended June 30, 1998)) and all references to such report letters
and/or this firm in such Prospectus.


                                          H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.



September 21, 1998
Michael F DeLuca
                     Certified Public Accountant




October 30, 2000

To Whom It May Concern:

     The  firm  of Michael F. DeLuca, CPA, consents to the inclusion
of my report of October 26, 2000, on the financial statements of The
Cyber Group Network Corporation for the quarter ended September  30,
2000 and September 30, 1999, in any filings which are necessary  now
or  in any filings which are necessary now or in the near future  to
be filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.


Very Truly Yours,

/s/ Michael F DeLuca

Michael F. DeLuca


/15/


 (714) 692-8206 * 23001 E. La Palma Avenue Suite 220A  Yorba Linda,
                   CA. 92887 * Fax (714) 692-3054
#### Jack MESSELT v. STATE.

8 Div. 883.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 16, 1977.

LEIGH M. CLARK, Supernumerary Circuit Judge.

Compliance having been made with the directions on remand of this case, and the appeal in each of the three basic cases1 discussed in the opinion in this case having been submitted on briefs of parties, any and all issues raised on this particular appeal have become moot, or are resolvable, by our determination of the appeals in the basic cases.

A continuation of the appeal in this case serves no useful purpose, and the appeal herein is hereby dismissed.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by Supernumerary Circuit Judge LEIGH M. CLARK, serving as a judge of this Court under Section 2 of Act No. 288 of July 7, 1945, as amended; his opinion is hereby adopted as that of the Court.

The judgment below is hereby

DISMISSED.

All the Judges concur.

1

. *Messelt v. State,*8 Div. 687, 8 Div. 712, 8 Div. 754, Ala.Cr.App., 351 So.2d 630, 636, 640 (1977).
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00305-CV

HEAT SHRINK INNOVATIONS, LLC APPELLANT

V.

MEDICAL EXTRUSION 

TECHNOLOGIES-TEXAS, INC., A 

TEXAS CORPORATION

APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court=s April 10, 2012 “Final 

Judgment.” The trial court subsequently granted appellant’s motion for new trial 

on July 24, 2012, while it still had plenary jurisdiction over the case. See Tex. R. 

Civ. P. 329b(e).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

On July 30, 2012, we informed the parties that it appeared the trial court=s 

granting of the motion for new trial rendered this appeal moot and that the appeal 

would be dismissed as moot unless, on or before August 9, 2012, any party 

desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing 

the appeal. Neither party filed a response.

Therefore, on this court=s own motion, we dismiss the appeal as moot. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: September 27, 2012
Mark McKinnon

Dentons US LLP

1676 Inter national Drive • Penthouse
McLean, VA 22102

- 4832

United States

email: mark.mckinnon@dentons.com

T 703.336.8808

F 703.336.8750 Salans FMC SNR

Denton
McKenna Long

dentons.com

September 8

, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 1 1278 granted to Perfect View Aerial Media (Docket

No. FAA

– 2014

– 0845 )

To Whom it May Concern:

As you are aware, this of fice represents Perfect View Aerial Media (Perfect View) regarding the above

- referenced Petition for Exemption, which was granted on A pril 1 , 2015.

Perfect View hereby requests an amendment to its Exemption to add three additional aircraft, the DJI Inspire

, DJI S900 , a nd Roboflight RF70

.

I. D ESCRIPTION OF P ROPOSED O PERATIONS

Perfect View seeks to amend its Ex emption to add the aircraft listed above for use in support of Perfect View's aerial photography, infrastructure inspection, and aerial data gathering

activities

.

I I

. P ERFECT V IEW ' S P ROPOSED UAS O PERATIONS M EET THE R EQUIREMENTS OF S ECTION 333 OF THE R EFORM A CT

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Sp eed, and Operational Capability

The FAA has already ruled that the listed aircraft meet all of the criteria set forth in

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Accordingly, all of the requirements to ope r ate these vehicles been satisfied and the petiti on is suitable for a summary

grant.

DJI Inspire : See

, Exemption No. 11254 to Upward Aerial; Exemption No. 11659 to

Fovea Aero Systems; Exemption No. 11668 to Sky

- Forge Robotics LLC.

DJI S900 : See , Exemption No. 12640 to Revolution UAS, LLC , Docket No. FAA

- 2015

-

2422 ; Exemption No. 12636 to AirGo Media, LLC , Docket no. FAA

- 2015

- 2425

.September 8, 2015 Page 2 Salans FMC SNR Denton
McKenna Long

dentons.com

Roboflight RF70 : See

, Exemption No. 12630 to RC Aztec Enterprise Inc ., Docket No.

FAA

– 2015

– 1391 ; Exemption No. 12445 to Air Data Solutions , FAA Docket

No. FAA

– 2015

– 1025

.

A s this is an amendment to an existing exemption seeking the addition of a supplementary UAS model that is substantially similar to the one currently authoriz ed for use under the Exemption, Perfect View re spectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

III. The Requested Amendment is in the Public Interest

The above listed UAS offer substantial safety benefits for aerial data collection o ver conventional operations using helicopters or fixed wing aircraft.

If you have any questions regarding this amendment, or require any additional information to process Perfect View ' s Petition, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark E. McKinnon Counsel for Perfect View Aerial Media
254 La. 818

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Frank BOLTON, Jr., et al.

No. 50175.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: Frank Bolton, Jr., et al. applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the rulings complained of.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsResults of a M = 5.3 heat transfer test of the integrated vehicle using phase-change paint techniques on the 0.0175-scale model 56-OTS in the NASA/Ames Research Center 3.5-foot hypersonic wind tunnelAn experimental investigation was performed in the NASA/Ames Research Center 3.5-foot Hypersonic Wind Tunnel to obtain supersonic heat-distribution data in areas between the orbiter and external tank using phase-change paint techniques. The tests used Novamide SSV Model 56-OTS in the first and second-stage ascent configurations. Data were obtained at a nominal Mach number of 5.3 and a Reynolds number per foot of 5 x 10 to the 6th power with angles of attack of 0 deg, +/- 5 deg, and sideslip angles of 0 deg and +/- 5 deg.Document ID19850014157Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMarroquin, J.*(Rockwell International Corp. Downey, Calif., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1985Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:167695DMS-DR-2524NASA-CR-167695Accession Number85N22468Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-17179Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850014157.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
#### Herbert FARRELL, Jr., Appellant, v. BANK OF PALM BEACH AND TRUST CO., a state banking Institution, Appellee.

No. 2233.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

April 1, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 13, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the undersigned, Darren Holm, Chief Executive Officer of Silver  Bow Antique Aviation, (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his  knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007  Of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company.

Date:       May 21, 2004

/s/Darren J. Holm-------------------------Darren J. HolmChief Executive Officer

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the undersigned, Dempsey Mork, Chief Financial Officer of Silver  Bow Antique Aviation, (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to hisknowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007  of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  May 21, 2004

/s/Dempsey K. Mork  -------------------------  Dempsey K. Mork  Chief Financial Officer