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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7295

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FREDERICK G. COSTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District

Judge. (00-0406-WMN)

Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 24, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick G. Coster, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White,

SILVERMAN, THOMPSON & WHITE, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Frederick G. Coster seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) motion as a successive

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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) (2000). 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 Coster has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28008]


      
========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / 
Notices

[[Page 55214]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Research, Education, and Economics


Notice of Strategic Planning Task Force Meeting

AGENCY: Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture announces a 
meeting of the Strategic Planning Task Force on Research Facilities.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Strategic Planning Task Force on 
Research Facilities, currently consisting of 14 members, is scheduled 
to meet for the third of eight planned meetings. The meeting is 
scheduled to be held at the Presidio of San Francisco Military Reserve, 
San Francisco, California, beginning at 1 p.m. on December 2 and 
concluding at 5 p.m. on Thursday, December 4. The meeting will be a 
review of progress of the Task Force and will devote 1 day to a 
discussion regarding Federal, state and private roles in agricultural 
research. Anticipated is a tour of the Western Region Nutrition 
Laboratory and presentations by Agricultural Research Service, Forest 
Service, and university officials.
    Times and Dates: December 2, 1997, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.; December 3, 1997, 
8 a.m.-5 p.m.; and December 4, 1997, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Presidio of San Francisco Military Reserve, San Francisco, 
CA 94133.
    Type of Meeting: Open to the Public.
    Comments: The public may file written comments before or after the 
meeting with the contact person listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mitch Geasler, Project Director, 
Strategic Planning Task Force on Research Facilities, Room 212-W, Jamie 
L. Whitten Building, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20250. Telephone (202) 720-3803.

    Done at Washington, D.C., this 7th day of October 1997.
I. Miley Gonzalez,
Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
[FR Doc. 97-28008 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
Exhibit 3.8 – FHWA On-Boarding Orientation Checklist 

DATE:

AGREEMENT REVIEW DISCUSSED (X) NOT APPLICABLE or DISCUSSED (X)

ARTICLE I - AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE

Brief Overview of Authority

Review Purpose

Review differences in ISDEAA and FHWA Agreement

ARTICLE II - Terms, Provisions, and Conditions

Effective Date and Terms

Funding

Powers

Dispute Resolution

Construction of the Agreement

Activities to be Performed

Limitation of Costs

Carryover

Applicable regulations

Tribal Facilities and Equipment

A. Health and Safety

B. Program Standards and Regulations

C. PS&E Approval

D. Planning and Inventory

E. Easements, Maintenance, and Utility Agreements, &

Environmemtal Assessments

F. Construction

G. Reporting Requirements

ON-BOARDING ORIENTATION CHECKLIST 

TRIBE:

ORIENTATION FORMAT: [ ] MEETING [ ] TELECONFERENCE (CHECK ONE)

FHWA TTP FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR TTP

PARTICIPANTS: (Names of attendees from Tribe and FHWA)

PURPOSE: To ensure all parties are acquainted with one another and understand the requirements of the TTP Funding 

Agreement before on boarding processis completed.

ARTICLE III - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TRIBE
Providing funds

Authorizing work

Coordination with BIA

Coordination with Public Authorities

Designated Officials

Federal Construction Standards

Joint Inspection

Technical Assistance

Reporting

Additional Fund Notification

OTHER PROVISIONS

Eligibility for Additional Funding and Services

Access to Data

Sovereign Immunity

Trust Responsibility

Federal Tort Claims Act/Insurance

Indian and Tribal Preference

Severability

Termination of the Agreement

Special Conditions

Amendments

Good Faith

Successor Agreements

ARTICLE IV - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
OTHER ISSUES OR DISCUSSIONS:

SIGNATURES

FHWA TTP Team Member: ______________________ Date: __________________________

Tribe: _______________________________ Date: __________________________

Name/Position:_______________________________

We, the undersigned, do hereby agree that the items checked above were discussed.

Signature:___________________________________
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of American United Gold Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, David Uppal, 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:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of February, 2008.

BY:
/s/ DAVID UPPAL                        David  Uppal, Principal Executive Officer **
**CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 
 
 I, Kevin
D. Johnson, certify that;
 
 (1) I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Snap2 Corporation;
 
 (2) Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 (3) Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 (4) The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:
 
 a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting; and
 
 (5) The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting,
to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small
business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting.
 
 Date:  May 18,
2005
   /s/   
 Kevin D.
Johnson
 By:   
Kevin D. Johnson
 Title:
Chief Executive Officer
# L_2006240EN.01002001.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/20

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1512/2005 of 15 September 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 241 of 17 September 2005
  )

On page 26, in Annex I, in the second line ‘Vino de la Tierra’, in the fourth column ‘Language’:

insert:

‘Spanish’.

---
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                             CONSENT OF HOBE & LUCAS

                                                    March 26, 2003



Mr. Russell Ciphers Sr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
American Stone Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 261
Amherst, OH 44001

                                                   RE:  Consent to Incorporation
                                                        of Independent Auditors'
                                                        Report

Dear Mr. Ciphers:

        This firm was the independent auditor for American Stone Industries,
Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002. In this
context, we understand that the Company is filing a Form 10-KSB with the
Securities & Exchange Commission and has filed a Form S-8 with the Securities &
Exchange Commission (registration number 333-74899).

        Pursuant to Rule 601(b)(23), this letter will serve as our consent for
the Company to file with the Form 10-KSB and incorporate by reference in the
Form S-8 our Independent Auditors' Report dated February 14, 2003 for fiscal
year ended December 31, 2002 and to the reference of Hobe & Lucas, Certified
Public Accountants, Inc., therein.


                                            /s/ Hobe & Lucas
                                            Certified Public Accountants, Inc.
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Hobe & Lucas,
                                            Certified Public Accountants, Inc.




                                  Exhibit 23.1
                                   Page 1 of 1
254 La. 834

#### Lawrence Joseph SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 50196.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 7, 1969.

In re: Lawrence Joseph Smith applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. Relator has made no showing which would warrant the exercise of either our supervisory or original jurisdiction.
U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Federal Highway 

Administration

400 Seventh St., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

October 17, 1996 

Refer to: HNG-14/XX-02 

Mr. James W. Young 

Vice President 

Sales and Marketing 

Franklin Industries 

P.O. Box 671 

Franklin, Pennsylvania 16323 

Dear Mr. Young: 

This is in response to your September 16 letter to Mr. Nicholas Artimovich requesting the 

Federal Highway Administration’s acceptance of your company’s dual-post EZE-Erect 

system. Your letter was accompanies by a Southwest Research Institute report dates 

August 1987 on a tripe-post support test (which did not pass) and calculations performed 

by Mr. Malcolm Ray indicating expected performance bases on single-post test results. 

Our Geometric and Roadside Design Acceptance Letter Number SS-9, dates March 16, 

1989, found single, 6.0-kg/m (4-pound/foot) EZE-Erect posts acceptable in both strong 

and weak soils. Some States have found two EZE-Erect posts acceptable by virtue of an 

extrapolation of the results of the single-post tests. Mr. Ray’s calculations that you 

provided show that the dual post support would meet the change-in-velocity criteria. 

The report of the triple-post test shows an excessive velocity change. However, this was 

predictable from the single-post testing. In fact, the energy dissipated per post in the 

triple-post test was very close to that in the comparable single-post test. This gives us 

confidence in the interpolation and extrapolation of the test data. Thus, from these data 

we can infer that a dual-post support will perform satisfactorily in the strong-soil 

conditions under which the three-post support was tested. Therefore, a dual-post EZEErect sign support system using posts of up to and including 6.0 kg/m will be acceptable 

for use in strong soil on the National Highway System when requested by a State. Our 

reason for excluding the dual posts in weak soil is the fact that doubling the energy 

dissipated in the low-speed, single-post test in weak soil predicts a dual-post energy loss 

at 98 percent of the allowable. We consider this too close for us to base our acceptance 

on the available data. In addition, in the single-post, weak-soil, low-speed test the post 

and stub pulled entirely out of the ground. While this, in and of itself, has not been used 

as a basis for disqualifying a breakaway system, it does cast doubt on the repeatability of 
the performance of the system and certainly requires caution in extrapolating the 

performance data. 

 

 Sincerely, 

 Seppo I. Sillan, Acting Chief 

 Federal Aid and Design Division
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

**Waterfowl Identification in the Central Flyway**

##       Topography of a Typical Duck    

----

****

----

Previous Section
Return to Contents
Next Section

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey		URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/waterfwl/topo.htm		Page Contact Information: Webmaster		Page Last Modified: Thursday, 03-Aug-2006 11:32:16 EDT		Reston, VA [vaww54]
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10(102)    
  


 
 

DEFERRAL AGREEMENT    
    
    TARSAP DEFERRAL PLAN    
  


        This Agreement is dated August 30, 2002 and relates to my deferral of the receipt of TARSAP II shares under the Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. TARSAP
Deferral Plan. 


	1.
	Election not to defer



o    I
elect not to defer the TARSAP II shares that may vest on March 1, 2003. 



	2.
	Election to defer



ý    I
elect to defer receipt of 7,500 shares of my TARSAP II shares that may vest on March 1, 2003. This deferral election constitutes
my consent to the immediate cancellation of this elected number of TARSAP shares and the issuance of rights to an equal amount of Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. common stock in lieu of these
shares (Deferred Shares). 



	3.
	Election of Deferral Date



I
elect to defer receipt of the above specified shares until my termination of employment or the following date, January 1, 2006, whichever date comes
first (under the Plan this is called the Commencement Date). 


The
shares will then be issued as follows (check either A, B or C):  



	 	ý	 	(A)	 	All Deferred Shares will be issued as a lump sum of shares on the Commencement Date.
	 	o	 	(B)	 	All Deferred Shares will be issued as a lump sum of shares on the first anniversary of the Commencement Date (i.e., one year after the Commencement Date).
	 	o	 	(C)	 	All Deferred Shares will be issued over            years (insert 2 to 10) in approximately equal annual installments of shares, with the first installment
issued on the first anniversary of the Commencement Date (i.e., one year after the Commencement Date) and each installment thereafter will be issued on successive anniversaries of the Commencement
Date.





        I
understand that my election is irrevocable, subject to the provisions of the TARSAP Deferral Plan. I further understand my Deferred Shares are subject to forfeiture in the same manner
that TARSAP shares are subject to forfeiture. I agree to be bound by the terms of the TARSAP Program, the TARSAP Deferral Plan and the Company's 1990 Restricted Stock Plan, as amended from time to
time, which are incorporated herein by reference. This Agreement will be governed by Nevada law. 


Participant:  


Signature        /s/
STEPHEN H. BRAMMELL 


Printed
Name Stephen H. Brammell 



	Address	 	 	 
	 	
	 	 
	

Social Security Number:	

 	
 	

 
	 	
	 	 





	Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.	 	 
	

By:	

 	
 	

 
	 	
	 	 
	

Title	

 	
 	

 
	 	
	 	 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10(102)


DEFERRAL AGREEMENT TARSAP DEFERRAL PLAN
S. 3640 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 155 South 

Main Street in Mount Clemens, Michigan, as the ‘‘Lieutenant Colonel Alexander 

Jefferson Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER JEFFERSON POST 

OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 155 South Main Street in Mount Clemens, 

Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lieutenant Colonel 

Alexander Jefferson Post Office’’. 

(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 ‘‘Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Jefferson Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RALPH COLLINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (2:04-cr-00004-JBF-TEM-4; 2:07-CV-00344-JBF)

Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ralph Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 Collins has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Collins’ motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED