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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6045

MICHAEL PAGE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional

Institution; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney

General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-03-2895-6-20AK)

Submitted: July 23, 2004 Decided: September 20, 2004

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Page, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*By order filed June 2, 2004, this appeal was placed in

abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent

decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no

longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Page seeks to appeal from the district court’s

order finding that his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

was successive and dismissing it without prejudice. 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 his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Page has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

To the extent that Page’s notice of appeal and appellate

brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a

successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. See United
- 3 -

States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). 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
23.1









CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM









The Board
of Directors


Weikang
Bio-Technology Group Company, Inc.:







We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in  the Registration
Statement on Form S-1 of our report dated March 22, 2010 on the audit of the
consolidated balance
sheet of Weikang Bio-Technology Group Company, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of
operations and other comprehensive income, shareholders equity and cash flows
for the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, which appear in the
Company's Current Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 31,
2010




We
also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” included
in this Registration Statement.














Goldman
Parks Kurland Mohidin LLP


Encino,
California


March 31,
2010
#### In re ESTATE of Eurith Dickinson RIVERS, Sr., Deceased.

No. 73-1313.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-0878

Lower Tribunal No. 22-MM-022059

_____________________________

JASON AYCOX,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the County Court for Lee County.

H. Andrew Swett, Judge.

August 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and WHITE and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Jason Aycox, Lawtey, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Exhibit
10.40


 


October
__, 2020


 


To
the Members of the Board of Directors of SurgePays, Inc.


 


I,
_______, _________ of SurgePays, Inc. (the “(Company”), currently own _________ shares of Series C Convertible Preferred
Stock of the Company, par value $0.001 per share (the “Series C Preferred Stock”). I understand my shares of Series C Preferred
Stock are convertible into a total of _________ shares of common stock of the Company, par value $0.001 per share (the “Common
Stock”), as adjusted on a post 1:50 reverse stock split basis, without further consideration being paid to the Company.


 


Effective
upon the closing of the offering of the Company’s securities pursuant to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1
(Registration No. 333-233726), I hereby elect to convert, pursuant to Section 4 of the Certificate of Designation for Series “C”
Convertible Preferred Stock, as amended, all of my shares of Series C Preferred Stock into _________ shares of Common Stock. I understand
the shares of Common Stock will be issued with a restrictive legend.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	_____________________________
	 	Name:
    _________
	 	Title:
    _________
Exhibit 32.2

                         STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned is the CFO of Earn-A-Car, Inc. This Certification is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification
accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Earn-A-Car, Inc. for the year
ended February 28, 2013.

The undersigned certifies that such report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Earn-A-Car, Inc. as of
February 28, 2013.

This Certification is executed as of June 13, 2013.


                                           /s/ Bruce Dunnington
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Bruce Dunnington, CFO
<PAGE>
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
                                                                          


                    CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.
                           RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                   TWELVE MONTHS ENDED             

                                 (Thousands of Dollars) 




                                              SEPTEMBER       SEPTEMBER
                                                1996            1995   
<S>                                          <C>             <C>

Earnings
  Net Income                                 $  687,062**    $  728,605
  Federal Income Tax                            350,300         289,250
  Federal Income Tax Deferred                    46,170         138,350
  Investment Tax Credits Deferred                (9,170)         (9,400)
    Total Earnings Before
     Federal Income Tax                       1,074,362       1,146,805
  Fixed Charges*                                347,934         345,063

    Total Earnings Before Federal
     Income Tax and Fixed Charges            $1,422,296      $1,491,868




*Fixed Charges


Interest on Long-Term Debt                   $  293,261      $  286,192
Amortization of Debt Discount,
  Premium and Expenses                           14,390          11,610
Interest Component of Rentals                    19,589          18,948
Other Interest                                   20,694          28,313

  Total Fixed Charges                        $  347,934      $  345,063


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                 4.09            4.32



** Reflects increased depreciation expense resulting from preferred stock refunding.
   See "Liquidity and Capital Resources" in Management's Discussion and Analysis
   appearing in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
   ended September 30, 1996.







</TABLE>
#### George PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-202.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 9, 1970.

*122Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was represented by co-counsel, was convicted by a jury and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Subsequently he filed his motion to vacate sentence and judgment for the reason that he was denied due process in that he had to share a court-appointed counsel with a codefendant. No motion for separate counsel was made prior to or during the trial.

The Florida Supreme Court in Dunbar v. State, Fla.1969, 220 So.2d 366, where they reviewed this court’s opinion at 214 So.2d 52 wherein we certified the question as being of great public interest, said:

> “On the point now before us, the sum of the holding of the cases last-cited simply is that if there is no request for separate counsel and the court permits trial of joint indigent defendants with single court-appointed counsel, reversible error does not occur unless the record reveals that some prejudice results from failure to appoint separate lawyers for each defendant.” 220 So.2d at 368.

The court there was speaking of State v. Youngblood, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 98, and Belton v. State, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 97.

Therefore, it would appear that the trial judge committed error when he failed to afford appellant an evidentiary hearing. The purpose of the evidentiary hearing being to allow appellant to show prejudice if he is able. In the absence of a showing of prejudice, the appellant would not be entitled to the relief prayed for in his motion to vacate and set aside since he failed to preserve the point at the inception of the trial where he should have made the motion for separate counsel.

For these reasons we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
DRAFT 12-5-14

1

Followup Call: 111(d) Goal Translation

US EPA and Georgia EPD

December 15, 2014, 10:00 am – 11:00 am

Introductions

Georgia EPD Attendees:

Keith Bentley, GEPD Director

Karen Hays

James Boyland

Albert Pearce

Proposed Agenda

Georgia EPD presentation to EPA (25 minutes)

 Background – application of goal-setting equation to Georgia 

 Proposed method to project generation for setting mass-based goal 

 Comparisons of 2030 generation determined by different methods

 Issues with projections

 Summary

Questions for EPA on Goal Translation TSD (20 minutes)

 Under the “existing affected sources” approach, what is the estimated nationwide 

reduction in CO2 emissions from 2005?

 Same question for the “existing affected and new fossil fuel-fired sources”

approach?

 On the November 20 call, someone on the EPA team indicated that the rate-based 

goal has no expectation of a generation level in the goal year. If so, please 

explain how the rate-based goal can be reasonable without tying back into a 

rigorous projection of demand/generation in 2030.

Wrap-up
#### Joseph Edward MATRASCIA and Josephina Matrascia, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 76-1816, 76-1874 and 76-1875.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 23, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1977.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, for appellants.

*736Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Margarita Esquiroz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are by Joseph and Josephina Matrascia, who were jointly tried before a jury and found guilty upon two counts for receiving stolen property and one count for the obstruction of service of execution of a search warrant. The single question presented in this consolidated appeal is: Whether the trial court erred in denying each defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state’s case. An examination of the record in the light of the briefs and oral argument requires affirmance upon the law set forth in *Lynch v. State,*293 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1974), where the court held:

> “A defendant, in moving for a judgment of acquittal, admits not only the facts stated in the evidence adduced, but also admits every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence. The courts should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the opposite party can be sustained under the law.”

See also *Delgado v. State,*319 So.2d 610 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.3


              ORANGE AND ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                       ----------------------------------
                               TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                               -------------------
                             (Thousands of Dollars)


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                June
                                                                2001
                                                              -------
<S>                                                           <C>
EARNINGS
        Net Income                                            $39,953
        Federal Income & State Tax                             26,661

        Total Earnings Before Federal and State Income Tax     66,614

FIXED CHARGES*                                                 28,487
                                                              -------
                    Total Earnings Before Federal and State
                       Income Tax and Fixed Charges           $95,100
                                                              =======



        * Fixed Charges

        Interest on Long-Term Debt                            $22,283
        Interest Component on lease Payment                     2,611
        Other Interest                                          3,593
                                                              -------

                    Total Fixed Charges                       $28,487
                                                              =======



        Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                       3.34
                                                              =======
</Table>
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6)

Oct - Dec

2007 Actual 91 87 (14) 73 (18) 57

Jan - Mar

2008 Actual 187 191 (15) 176 (11) 46

Apr - Jun

2008 Actual (74) (45) (22) (66) 7 53

Jul - Sep

2008 Actual 179 527 (30) 497 318 372

Oct - Dec

2008 Actual 556 569 (18) 551 (5) 367

Jan - Mar

2009 Actual 565 481 (14) 467 (98) 269

Apr - Jun

2009 Actual 278 343 (17) 327 49 318

Jul - Sep

2009 Actual 415 393 (20) 372 (43) 275

Oct - Dec

2009 Actual 340 260 (3) 258 (82) 194

Jan - Mar

2010 Actual 446 483 (12) 471 25 219

Apr - Jun

2010 Actual 263 344 (10) 334 71 290

Jul - Sep

2010 Actual 362 396 (14) 382 20 310

Oct - Dec November 1, 2010 372 362 (0) 362 (10) 300

2010 Actual 326 363 (4) 359 33 343

Memo: Forecast Revision (46) 1 (4) (3) 43 43

Jan - Mar November 1, 2010 454 431 (7) 424 (30) 270

2011 January 31, 2011 503 237 (11) 226 (277) 65

Memo: Forecast Revision 49 (194) (4) (198) (247) (205)

Apr - Jun

2011 January 31, 2011 258 299 (10) 288 30 95

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
#### Gilberto Sierra PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-633.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 18, 1973.

Gilberto Sierra Perez, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States' in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
TREASURY ANNOUNCES MARKET FINANCING ESTIMATES 

Today, the Treasury Department announced net borrowing of marketable 

debt for the October-December 2005 and January–March 2006 quarters. 

Quarter 

Estimated 

Borrowing 

($ billion) 

Estimated 

End-of-Quarter 

Cash Balance 

($ billion) 

Oct-Dec 2005 $96 $25 

Jan-Mar 2006 $171 $15 

Since 1997, the average absolute forecast error in net borrowing of 

marketable debt for the current quarter is $10 billion and the average 

absolute forecast error for the end-of-quarter cash balance is $9 billion. 

Similarly, the average absolute forecast error for the following quarter is $32 

billion and the average absolute forecast error for the end-of-quarter cash 

balance is $11 billion. 

The following tables reconcile the variation between forecasted and actual 

net borrowing of marketable debt in the July-September 2005 quarter. 

Quarter 

Estimated 

Borrowing 

($ billions) 

Actual 

Borrowing 

($ billions) 

Estimated 

End-of-Quarter 

Cash Balance 

($ billions) 

Actual 

End-of-Quarter 

Cash Balance 

($ billions) 

Jul-Sep 2005 $59 $52 $30 $36 

Categories 

Chg from 

Aug Estimate 

Receipts $14 

Outlays ($3) 

Other $2 

Larger End-of-Quarter 

Cash Balance 

($6) 

Additional financing details relating to Treasury’s Quarterly Refunding will 

be released at 9:00 A.M. on Wednesday, November 2. The following link 

provides access to Treasury documents related to this Quarterly Refunding. 

(http://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/debt-management/quarterly-refunding/)
# ERA1 Quarterly Summary

# ERA1 Quarterly by Income Level

# ERA1 Demographics by State

# ERA1 State & Local Households

# ERA1 State & Local Expenditure

# ERA1 State & Local Additional

# ERA2 Quarterly Summary

# ERA2 Quarterly by Income Level

# ERA2 Demographics by State 

# ERA2 State & Local Households

# ERA2 State & Local Expenditure

# ERA2 State & Local Additional
Table 2. rev. Toxicological Studies on HFE-347pc-f Toxicological Data HFE-347pc-f Acute Oral Toxicity LD 50 orl-rat >2,000mg/kg Acute Inhalation Toxicity LC 50 ihl-rat 4hr >3,010ppm Subacute Oral Toxicity rat 28days NOAEL 1,000mg/kg/day Subacute Inhalation Toxicity rat 6hr/day•28days NOEL 0.99mg/L (ca.120ppm) Subacute Inhalation Toxicity rat 6hr/day•90days NOAEL 1000ppm Gene Mutation Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test Negative Chromosomal Aberration Test CHL cell Negative Bioconcentration LogP OW Skin Irritation Eye Irritation Local Lymph Node Assay Acute Toxicity in Carp 96hr-LC50 A cute Toxicity in Daphnia 48hr-EC50 Algal Growth Inhibition 72hr-EC50 2.18 Non-irritant Non-irritant Not skin sensitizer

>76mg/L*

>94mg/L*

>213mg/L* (24mg/L)**

* : mean measured concentration ** : The Time Weight Average(TWA) concentration
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63537-63538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31377]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. EC96-19-011; and ER96-1663-012]


Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric 
Company, and Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Filing

November 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 21, 1997, the California Power 
Exchange Corporation (PX) filed for Commission approval in this docket, 
pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, an application to 
amend the PX Tariff and a motion for waiver of the 60-day notice 
requirement. The PX requests that the proposed PX Tariff amendments be 
made effective as of January 1, 1998. In addition, on November 21, the 
PX filed for informational purposes its Revised Staging Plan No. 1.
    The PX states that the proposed tariff amendments are necessary for 
January 1, 1998, operations of the tariff and involve PX Tariff 
modifications on, inter alia, security, Billing and Settlements, and 
conform the PX Tariff to software limitations on the PX's computer 
systems.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before December 2, 1997. Filings must 
include a one page executive summary.
    Protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing

[[Page 63538]]

are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31377 Filed 11-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Trunkbow International Holdings Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ye Yuan Jun, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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/ Ye Yuan JunYe Yuan JunChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 23.1









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  
 
 
 We hereby consent to the use in the annual report of Alderon Iron Ore Corp. (formerly Alderon Resource Corp.) on Form 40-F of our report dated March 27, 2012, on the consolidated statements of financial position as at December 31, 2011 and 2010, and January 1, 2010 and the consolidated statements of changes in shareholders’ equity, comprehensive loss and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information of Alderon Iron Ore Corp. (formerly Alderon Resource Corp.), which is contained in the annual report on Form 40-F.
 
 
 “DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP”
 
 Vancouver, Canada
Chartered AccountantsMarch 30, 2012