alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATIONS 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 The Cyber Group Network Corporation (the
"Company") on Form  10-KSB  for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed
with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer,  certifies,  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 3(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  and  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.



By: /s/ R. Scott Cramer
    -------------------

    R. Scott Cramer
    Chief  Executive  Officer


Dated: December 18, 2003


<PAGE>
# FuLLe

Rm rF?TOFTRA::SPORWiO N Marc h 8,2010 , i ^•" ^ •^**"*'^^^^^ ^ DCDbT S Th e Honorabl e Ra

yLaHolidlX*A. VV ^ ^^^^^^^H ^

' ^ ' ^ ^ ' Secretary Unite d State s Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerseyAvenue , S E Washington , D.C

. 

### 2059 0 Subject : Haned a Combinatio n Service s Allocatio n Proceedin g DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea rSecretaryLaHood : A s a dedicate d trave l partne ro fAmerica n Airlines , I a m writin g i n suppor t o fAmerican' s applicatio n t o provid e ne wservic e fro m Ne wYork' s Joh n F

. Kenned yInternationa l Airpor t an d Lo

s Angele s Internationa l Airpor t t o Toky o Internationa l Airpor t a t Haneda

. I recogniz e an d iapplau d yo u an d th e Obam a administratio n fo ryou rsucces s las t Decembe ri n reachin g a landmar k Ope n Skie s agreemen t wit h Japan , whic h open s u p Haned a C

o servic e faylif.S

. airlines

. I encourag e you rselectio n o fAmerica n Airline s t o provid e nonsto p servic e fro m Ne w Yor k an d Los Angele s t o Haneda i i n orde rt o provid e a n essentia l connectio n betwee n thre e o fth e world' s larges t financia l an d commerc e centers

. Recen t events , includin g th e successfu l preservatio n o fJapa n Airlines ' oneworl d Allianc e membership , hav e underscore d American' s stron g commitmen t t o th e trans-Pacifi c market

. America n i s likewis e committe d t o Ne wYor k an d Lo s Angele s - bot h vita l foca l point s o fbusiness , trade , entertainment , technolog yan d educatio n - providin g unsurpasse d ai rservic e sinc e th e mid-1900 s Bot h th e Ne wYor k

an d Lo s Angele s metr o area s wil l gai n significan t economi cbenefit s fro m thes e propose d ne wflights , a s wil l American' s customer s an d employees

. However , w e nee d you rhel p t o mak e th e JF K& LAX/Haned a connectio n a reality

. Therefore , I strongl yurg e yo u t o sa yye s t o America n Airline s an d it s reques t fo rslot s t o fl yfro m Kenned yan d Lo s Angele s t p Haneda ! Since r Bonfrle'Ha'bel , Presiden t FULLERTRAVE LAGENC

Y, , \ ,



### VIRTUOS O MEMEBE R SPECIAUST S I NTH EAR TO FTRAVE L 

### 611 1 ISroadway

, Suit e10 0 Sa

nMtonio

. Zem

s 7820 9 210-828-631 1 70X210-828-655 6 866-828-631 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY RAVON RUFFIN, a/k/a Anthony Ray Ruffin,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00304-JAB-1; 1:14-cv00087-JAB-JLW)

Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Ravon Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Ravon Ruffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion and the order denying Ruffin’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. 

The orders are 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 Ruffin has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Ruffin’s motions to file 

addendums to his informal brief, we deny his motions for a certificate of appealability

and for appointment of counsel 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6057

TORREULLA LEWIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-05-506-JLK)

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Torreulla Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Torreulla Lewis appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Lewis v. Bledsoe, No. CA-05-506-JLK (W.D. Va. Dec. 2,

2005). 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
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

Monday, June 30, 2014

Mr. Herman Lee Kindred

TDC#671207

McConnell Unit

3001 S. Emily Dr.

Beeville, TX 78102

Hon. Michael A. Sheppard

District Attorney

307 N. Gonzales

Cuero, TX 77954

Re: Cause No. 13-14-00357-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13-5-9030

Style: In Re Herman Lee Kindred

Enclosed please find the opinion issued by the Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

24th District Court

Hon. Sharon Mathis, Jackson County District Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2490]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.
* * * * *
DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, February 4, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 

    Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), 
and Title 26, U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings 
or arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matter affecting a 
particular employee.
* * * * *
DATE & TIME: Thursday, February 6, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 

Correction and Approval of Minutes.
1997 Legislative Recommendations.
Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 219-4155.
Marjorie W. Emmons,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-2490 Filed 1-28-97; 2:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
PROMISSORY NOTE



PROMISSORY NOTE

U.S. $8,800,000Dated: December 18, 2001

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Kenneth F. Swaisland (herein called "Swaisland") of, 2949 Palmerston Avenue, West Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V7V 2X2, promises to pay to A. Richard Bullock (herein called "Bullock") of, 19 Ferguson Drive, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT4 2AZ, or any subsequent holder of this promissory note, the principal amount of Eight Million Eight Hundred Thousand ($8,800,000) Dollars of lawful money of the United States, in accordance with the following:




	Principal amount - The principal amount of this Promissory Note is U.S. $8,800,000.


	Interest - There is no interest bearing on the principal amount outstanding on this Promissory Note.


	Payment - The principal amount shall be payable by one-half of the net after -tax proceeds from the sale of Sun Power Corporation shares purchased from A. Richard Bullock pursuant to an agreement date December 18, 2001, and the remainder, if any, shall be paid on the date that is ten years plus one day from the date of the Share Purchase Agreement between Swaisland and Bullock, being December 19, 2011.


	Assignment - This Promissory Note is assignable by Bullock with prior written notice of such assignment to Swaisland at the address of Swaisland given above.


	Payment - The payment of any amounts due under this Promissory Note shall be made in such places as agreed to by Swaisland and Bullock, and failing such agreement, at the address of Bullock given above from time to time by Bullock to Swaisland.


	Governing Law - This Promissory Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Province of British Columbia.





/s/ Kenneth F. Swaisland



KENNETH F. SWAISLAND
#### Buretta D. SKEEN, Petitioner, v. The GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 37997.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1970.

Richard A. Sicking, of Kaplan, Dorsey & Sicking, Miami, for petitioner.

John R. Beranek, of Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission, now Industrial Relations Commission.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose, and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A.

We conclude from our consideration of the petition, record and briefs, that the or*210der of the Commission, except that portion relating to determination of attorneys fee, must be quashed on authority of the decision of this Court in Brown v. Griffin, 229 So.2d 225 (Fla.1969), and the cause remanded with directions that the matter be returned to the Judge of Industrial Claims for further findings of fact on the evidence already taken, in compliance with our opinions in Brown v. Griffin, *supra,*and Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, 81 So.2d 503 (Fla.1955).

Petitioner’s application for attorneys fees is granted in the amount of $250.00.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
1

Rule 10 (Court of Appeals). Affirmance W ithout Opinion. -- (a) The Court, with the concurrence of

all judges participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by order without rendering a formal

opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value and one or more of the following circumstances

exist and are dispositive of the appeal:

(1) The Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary implication by the trial court.

(2) There is m aterial evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

(3) No reversible error of law appears.

FILED

April 12, 1996

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION AT NASHVILLE

METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF )

NASHVILLE-DAVIDSON COUNTY, ) Davidson Circuit No. 94C-2930

)

Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Appeal No. 01A01-9511-CV-00497

)

vs. )

)

DIANNA SADLER, )

)

Defendant/Appellant. )

 

RULE 10 ORDER AND OPINION

 

This appears to be a proper matter for consideration pursuant to Court of Appeals

Rule 10(a).1

In this case, appellant, Dianna Sadler, appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding

that her dogs are “vicious” within the meaning of Metropolitan Code § 8.08.010. The trial

court ordered appellant to remove the dogs from her premises and confine them upon her

father’s property in Cheatham County. The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, but did not

file a Transcript of the Proceedings within 90 days thereafter, as required by Rule 24(b) of

the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the

trial court’s finding of fact that the dogs were “vicious.” However, the evidence and

testimony considered by the trial judge in reaching this conclusion are absent from the

record. It is well-established that in the absence of a transcript of the evidence, this court

must conclusively presume that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s

judgment and must, therefore, affirm. Reagor v. Dyer County, 651 S.W.2d 700, 701 (Tenn.

1983); Leek v. Powell, 884 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn. App. 1994); Coakley v. Daniels, 840 S.W.2d
2

367, 370 (Tenn. App. 1992).

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the trial court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance

with Court of Appeals Rule 10(a). Costs in this cause are taxed to appellant, for which

execution may issue if necessary.

 

HIGHERS, J.

 

FARMER, J.

 

LILLARD, J.
#### Town of Brownsville, Respondent, *vs. W.*A. Rembert, Appellant.

1. *Justices' courts*— Appeal—Notice, *failure to file*— Affirmance *of*judgment— *Diligence.*— Where appeal from judgment in a justice’s court is not taken on the day of its rendition, and no notice of appeal is given before the second term thereafter, at which the case is triable in the circuit court, the judgment below maybe affirmed on motion. And it is immaterial that after filing, and before hearing of the motion, such notice is given. Appellant does not show such diligence in prosecuting the appeal as the law requires.

*Jlppeal from Saline County Circuit Court.*

*George L. Hays, with*Ewing, *Smith do Pope,*for Appellant.

*J. W. Edmonds,*for Respondents

Norton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit upon an account tried before a justice of the peace, on which plaintiff recovered judgment, from which defendant two days thereafter took an appeal to the circuit court. This appeal was taken in November, and no notice of it wass given to plaintiff. The first term of the circuit court came on in February thereafter, and more than ten days after the appeal was taken. The second term of court came on in the following June, and at this term, and after the first day thereof, on the 20th day of *394June, plaintiff filed his motion for an affirmance of the judgment, for the reason that defendant had failed to give notice of his appeal, or prosecute the same.

On the 24th of June, four days after the motion was filed to affirm the judgment, defendant filed notice of appeal with proof of service of the same, on the 22nd of June.

The motion to affirm the judgment of the justice was taken up on the 25th of June and sustained by the court, and judgment entered accordingly.

The only question involved in the record is, whether the court committed error in its action, affirming the judgment of the justice.

In the case of Page vs. Atlantic & Pac. R. R. Co. (61 Mo. 78), the court declared that where an appeal is taken from the judgment of a justice on a day subsequent to its rendition, the party appealing should give notice thereof at least ten days before the first day of the term, at which it is triable; and if notice is not given before the second term thereafter, such failure will authorize an affirmance of the judgment. (See Rowley vs. Hinds & Welch, 50 Mo. 403.) The above cases are decisive of this, and the fact that defendant, four days after the motion to affirm the judgment had been filed, came into court and filed notice of appeal with proof of service, made only two days previous to the time the case was set for trial, is not such diligence in the prosecution of his appeal as the law requires.

Judgment affirmed.

All the other judges concur.
1

Subject: FW: Question about your 2010 Am J Respir Crit Care Med Paper

From: Strickland, Matthew [mailto:mjstric@emory.edu]  

Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:40 PM

To: Sacks, Jason

Subject: RE: Question about your 2010 Am J Respir Crit Care Med Paper

Sure thing Jason:

PM2.5 (24‐hr ave, ug/m3

)

  5%      95%  

9.55     30.89

SO2 (1‐hr max, ppb)

  5%      95%  

2.12     21.46

Best,

Matt

From: Sacks, Jason [mailto:Sacks.Jason@epa.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 3:51 PM

To: Strickland, Matthew

Subject: Question about your 2010 Am J Respir Crit Care Med Paper

Hi Matt,

I hope all is well. I have a quick question for you with respect to your 2010 paper in Am J Respir Crit Care Med, “Short‐

term associations between ambient air pollutants and pediatric asthma ED visits”. In figure 1  you present the C‐R

relationship for each of the pollutants examined. By any chance do you have the 5th and 95th percentile concentrations

for the pollutants detailed in these figures available?  

Right now I’m interested in SO2 since we are working on the SOx ISA, but I could see us also being interested in the PM

concentrations with us working on that document too.  

Thanks in advance,

Jason

Jason D. Sacks, M.P.H. 

Epidemiologist 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

National Center for Environmental Assessment 

Phone: 919-541-9729 

Fax: 919-541-1818
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 180 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 180

 For the relief of Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina 
               Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2005

    Mr. Kyl introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 For the relief of Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina 
               Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    In the administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia Marinova Peneva, 
Marina Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova shall be held and 
considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon 
payment of the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, 
Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova 
as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 
proper officer to reduce by the appropriate number during the current 
fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas available to natives of 
the country of the aliens' birth under subsection (a) of section 203 of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sierra Resource Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sandra
J. Andre, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



Date: December 24, 2008




                                        By: /s/ SANDRA J. ANDRE
                                            ___________________________
                                                Sandra J. Andre
                                                President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2089 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2089

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1271 North King Street in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, as the ``Hiram L. 
                      Fong Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. HIRAM L. FONG POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1271 North King Street in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Hiram L. Fong Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Hiram L. 
Fong Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate March 3, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2089

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1271 North King Street in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, as the ``Hiram L. 
                      Fong Post Office Building''.
```