alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Quarterly Report of Roanoke Technology Corp. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2005 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, David L. Smith, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial 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:
| 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. |

 

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 or its staff upon request.
| By:    | */s/*   *David L. Smith*

David L. SmithChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated: September 21, 2005
```

[104th Congress Public Law 115]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ115.104]

  
Public Law 104-115
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To guarantee the continuing full investment of Social Security and other 
  Federal funds in obligations of the United States. <<NOTE:  Mar. 12, 
                         1996 -  [H.R. 3021]>> 

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

SECTION 1. <<NOTE:  31 USC 3101 note.>> TREATMENT OF CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS 
            OF THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--In addition to any other authority provided by law, 
the Secretary of the Treasury may issue to each Federal fund obligations 
of the United States under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, 
before March 30, 1996, in an amount not to exceed the sum of--
            (1) the amounts deposited in such fund on or after the 
        earlier of--
                    (A) the date on which such Secretary would not 
                otherwise be able to issue such obligations to such 
                fund, or
                    (B) March 15, 1996,
        and before March 30, 1996, and
            (2) the face amount of obligations held by such fund which 
        mature during such period.

    (b) Obligations Exempt From Public Debt Limit.--
            (1) In general.--Obligations issued under subsection (a) 
        shall not be taken into account in applying the limitation in 
        section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code.
            (2) Termination of exemption.--Paragraph (1) shall cease to 
        apply on the earlier of--
                    (A) the date of the enactment of the first increase 
                in the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31, United 
                States Code, after the date of the enactment of this 
                Act, or
                    (B) March 30, 1996.

    (c) Federal Fund.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Federal 
fund'' means any Federal trust fund or Government account established 
pursuant to Federal law to which the Secretary of the Treasury has 
issued or is expressly authorized by law directly to issue obligations 
under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, in respect of public 
money, money otherwise required to be deposited in the Treasury, or 
amounts appropriated.
    (d) Extension of Existing Authority.--Subparagraph (B) of section 
1(c)(2) of Public Law 104-103 <<NOTE: 3Ante, p. 55.>>  is amended by 
striking ``March 15, 1996'' and inserting ``March 30, 1996''.

    Approved March 12, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3021:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            Mar. 7, considered and passed House and Senate.

                                  <all>
```
```

[104th Congress Public Law 44]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ44.104]

[[Page 109 STAT. 397]]

Public Law 104-44
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the United States Post Office building located at 201 East 
Pikes Peak Avenue in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the ``Winfield Scott 
     Stratton Post Office''. <<NOTE: Nov. 3, 1995 -  [H.R. 1026]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office building located at 201 East Pikes 
Peak Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Winfield Scott Stratton Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Winfield Scott Stratton Post 
Office''.

    Approved November 3, 1995

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1026:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Oct. 17, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 24, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. v. Joseph N. TRAIGLE, Collector of Revenue, State of Louisiana.

No. 62011.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Joseph N. Traigle, Collector of Revenue, State of Louisiana, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 357 So.2d 610.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MICHAEL LEE MYERS, 

Petitioner, 

v. I Civil Action No. 05-334 Erie 

Respondent. 1 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was received by the Clerk of Court on 

November 9, 2005 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise 

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 

U.S.C. €j 636(b)(l), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on January 17, 2006, 11 recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus bedismissed for failure to 

11 prosecute. The parties were allowed ten (1 0) days from the date of service to file 

objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail at SCI Waymart, where he 

is incarcerated. Petitioner has filed no objections to Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report 

and Recommendation. After de novo review of the petition and documents in the case, 

together with the Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered: 

AND NOW, this 6'h day of February, 2006, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 

DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. 

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on 

January 17, 2006 [Doc. # 31, is adopted as the opinion of the Court. 

S/ Sean J. McLaughlin United States District Judge 

Case 1:05-cv-00334-SJM-SPB Document 4 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 1
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 27, 2022

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21

- 810 Lower Tribunal No. 16

- 27442

________________ 

### New Horizons Condominium Master Association, Inc. , Appellant,

vs. 

### Robert Harding and Fifth Horizons Condominium, Inc., Appellee s

.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Charles K. Johnson , Judge. Scott J. Edwards, P.A. , and Scott J. Edwards (Boca Raton) , for appellant. Mark Perlman, P.A., and Mark Perlman (Hollywood) , for appellee s

.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and LOBREE , JJ. FERNANDEZ, C.J.2 New Horizons Condominium Master Association, Inc. appeals the trial
court order awarding Robert Harding and Fifth Horizons Condo minium, Inc. attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees fo r fees incurred in litigating the
amount of fees. Because this Court partially reversed the final judgment on
the merits in a separate appeal brought by New Horizons, w e reverse without prejudice the final judgment on all attorney’s fees

. At the time th i s attorney’s fees appeal was filed, New Horizon’s merits appeal was pending before this Court. On February 23, 2022, we entered an

o pinion on the merits affirming in part and reversing in part and remanding
with instructions , resulting in t he reversal of t he substantive portion of the
trial court’s summary judgment order in favor of a ppellees

. 1 See New Horizons Condo. Master Ass'n, Inc. v. Harding , 336 So. 3d 796, 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)

. Because this case has been remanded to reconsider the substantive issues of breach, an award for attorney’s fees and attorney’s fees for fees is dependent on the trial court’s determination of the prevailing party below. Additionally, piecemeal appeals are not appropriate “ where claims are
interrelated and in volve the same transaction and the same parties remain

1 This Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling requiring New Horizons to disclose past audits

. New Horizons Cond. , 336 So. 3d at 798.3 in the suit. ” Cicco v. Luckett Tobaccos, Inc. , 934 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)

. Accordingly, we revers e without prejudice to filing an appeal on a new final judgment on attorney’s fees after t he trial court has concluded its labor

. Reversed without prejudice and remanded.
f2fi~Wv~ru~'j ~t) \rl~- \c 1 o\0<\..o'l tO\.MtOFCRIMINAlAPPEALS 

SIP ~a ~u'~ 

~l \: {l\N~~ ~ \e'l ~e\A..,~r .,. 

A~®iAoo~a,C~em-

~~\,~~'~ "~ ~ w<t:\ o~ VV\~J{)~('4\\Ij 

t_ A'-' )t ~o \ ~ <.Jl ... :~ ~ 4 S ~ 'l:.. ~ + \\.Q. \ b ~;"' 

~\~(t.(." C...t.>J y ~ (bf'l"'o. ~\J~(Q~ Cnvl"\::j 

~ ~~ ~~ \ ~(_~~"'~: · S.~<l t::.~:~'~'\ ~ \:)~~Q.i ~S)r ~J\tl~~~u~ 

~\tU u~ / ~ ~ N'tl \- ktQ,W~ A..l:::, ~~ ~"""~~ 

~\()""' ~~~Lh. Ll>~~ L>.k (:\- ~~~Q~(. "l_~ \\.ll~C'~ \rl\\\\ 

C.c'-JA\ Qr~Qr ~~\~~ \\""~uY\ s 'l~\5. 

\ \~- ~~\t\'l '.:.~~ · U:\.\J~\ \\~~'-)d\L~ · ~~v~ ~~-- ~o 

~12.\~-\«. \~~.\~ ~}) ~0 c)~~~ ~~~l)~~ \.0 \N~~ 

~~ ~~ ~-(('\v~ U) h~l.\-\ \NCv\~ \:>\ ~~ . . ~~\)·~CW\ ~~ ~ l:~\ S. ···:: 

t\" o~ \Q~~~ )f{~-\~M~tr }.)-. 1.t>\S <\-\\"l Cc'-~t')f "l:..(. 

\~~-1'-' ~\~1~\.'"\ ~ \ ~ (vH ~~b \'""\ ~-(\~) ~-\(. '\N\'\\\ \J~ 

~t\~~'«.· ~\~\~ .Jc.-~ ~\~Q \\\\) \<{.'\"\(( ~~ ~""\~g. ·<.~,. . 

~~t\~!)( t\-\\.~ ~{)...\.~ Si\.s>\ )~"\\)_l 

"\ \~.,.>~-~~v ~~~~~'-""~~\\~. ~u~-.-' .. ~'l\'~ 

P, 

~ ~ '\,..} ~~" .::. ~ N"\ 't\ ~ 0~ 't'\ \1 ~ 

tl\Jv\·~ ~vr\~ \\~o\~o 

~'' Re ~ \} "\\ 

'J. \ <;) \ ~ t-1\ :)~ <\ 1\J '" 

~'\)y.J~ ~k\"- 1~~~ 

\\t)~~ l 

cument contains some 

pages that are of.poor quality 

at the time of imaging. 
IN THE COURT OF CRIMI.NALAPPEALS 

OF TEXAS 

NO~ WR-63,010-03 

. ' 

' IN RE ERWIN BURLEY, Relator 

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

CAUSE NO. 10CR2645d IN THE lOSj/DISTRICT COURT 

FROMNUECESCQUNTY 

Per curi11m. · 

ORDER l_. 

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original 

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corplis 

in the 1 051h District Court of Nueces County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the · 

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court. 

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk ofNueces ' ' . 

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas 

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be 

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 821 S. W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that 
.. '-• 

··r_: ~·i-~:d· .~tr::{ ~:~~;\ }~3,~- ··;' ·
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,127
<INVENTORY>                                     68,379
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,145
<PP&E>                                          22,760
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,909
<BONDS>                                         62,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196,807
<SALES>                                        545,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               545,273
<CGS>                                          452,396
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  452,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,186
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,772
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,663
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,109
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,109
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R . 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-20806 Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARIA INEZ CANTU, Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-94-CR-158-1

_________________________________________________________________ April 21, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Maria Inez Cantu appeals her sentence following her conviction
for conspiracy. She argues that the district court erred by increasing her offense level by two pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1
for possession of a firearm. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Given the evidence in the PSR that a loaded pistol was discovered on the he adboard to the bed in the master
bedroom at Cantu’s residence next to a large amount of currency, the district court did not err by increasing her offense level-2-

pur suant to § 2D1.1(b)(1). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
A F F I R M E D.
### AGEND A Februar y11, 201 5 USEP AR5/Veolia/(IEPA ) 1
. Carbo n Injectio n o n Unit s #2/3 -Confir m fundamenta l agreemen to fal l partie s (USEPA , IEPA , Veolia ) -Confir m ther e wil l b e n o effec tupo n curren ttestin g schedul e -Determin e permittin g responsibilitie s o fal l parties(USEPA , IEPA , Veolia ) -Establis h draf t timetabl e -IEP Aavailabl e t o conferenc e (betwee n 10:3 0 a.m . t o 12:00 , wil l brea k fro m FA P discussio n t o conference ) 2
. Enhance d FA P -Veoli a t o summariz e curren tenhance d activitie s i n plac e -Veoli a t o summariz e ho wcurren tenhance d practice s ar e consisten twit h draf t T 5 an d area s tha t ar e no tconsisten t *Conceptua l discussio n wit h entir e grou p t o ensur e understanding
. Detail s t o b e discusse d i n afternoo n meetin g o ftechnica l persona l fro m R5 an d Veolia
. 3
. Ambien tAi rMonito r -USEP At o summariz e detail s o fprojec t -Goal s o fprojec t -Duratio n o fprojec t -Monito rlocatio n -Constituent s monitore d -Complianc e understandin g -Projec tmanager/reportin g -Administrativ e documentatio n detail s *USEPA , Regio n 5 Ambien tAi rexpert s t o joi n meetin g durin g discussion
.
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

April 19, 2024

CR-2023-0761

Michael Bethany Steger, Jr. v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Madison Circuit 

Court: CC-07-6438.60) 

NOTICE 

You are hereby notified that on April 19, 2024, the following action was taken 

in the above-reference cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2774 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2774

To require the denial of admission to the United States for individuals 
 subject to sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13876, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 12, 2023

   Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Braun, Mr. 
Cotton, Mr. Rubio, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Scott of 
   Florida) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the denial of admission to the United States for individuals 
 subject to sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13876, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening Entry Visa Enforcement 
and Restrictions Act of 2023'' or the ``SEVER Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. DENIAL OF VISAS TO CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES TO UNITED NATIONS.

    Section 407(a)(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-246; 8 U.S.C. 1102 note) is 
amended by striking ``; and'' and inserting ``, or is subject to 
sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13876 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; 
relating to imposing sanctions with respect to Iran), as in effect on 
September 10, 2023; and''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6350

GEORGE CARTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRICK TRIPP, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-hc-02009-FL)

Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 24, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George E. Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George Carter, a D.C. Code Offender, seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Carter has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, 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
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26846]



[[Page 52793]]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Cross Disciplinary Activities; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Cross Disciplinary Activities 
(1193).
    Date and Time: October 28, 1997; 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
    Place: Rooms 950, 970 NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230.
    Contact Person(s): Dr. Rita Rodriguez, Program Director, CISE/
OCDA, Room 1160, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Telephone: (703) 306-1980.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate CISE Research Instrumentation 
proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: October 6, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-26846 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M