alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David Paul ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 72-452.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 30, 1972.

Ordered pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed here in May S, 1972 is denied. See Miles v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 101; Albury v. State, Fla. App.1971, 246 So.2d 141 and Presha v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 790.
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with the Annual Report of Obscene Jeans Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rachel Stark-Capelli, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:  (i)   the accompanying Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); and  (ii)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  OBSCENE JEANS CORP.  /s/ Rachel Stark-Capelli Rachel Stark-Cappelli President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, Director  Date:   September 17, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32613]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 United States Code Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of 
the following National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: Trauma and Burn (P50).
    Date: December 16-17, 1997.
    Time:

December 16--8:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.
December 17--8:00 a.m.-adjournment

    Place: Copley Plaza Hotel, 138 St. James Avenue, Boston, 
Massachusetts 02116.
    Contact Person: Dr. Bruce Wetzel, Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIGMS, Natcher Building--Room 1AS-19K, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20852-6200, Telephone: 301-594-3907.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review a grant application.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. The 
discussions of this application could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
application, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is published less than 15 days prior to the meeting 
due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the 
review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. [93.821, 
Biophysics and Physiological Sciences; 93.859, Pharmacological 
Sciences; 93.862, Genetics Research; 93.863, Cellular and Molecular 
Basis of Disease Research; 93.880, Minority Access Research Careers 
(MARC); and 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support (MBRS)], 
National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: December 8, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-32613 Filed 12-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### In re Daniel PERLMAN

No. 02-1049, 08/293, 08/016.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 21, 2002.

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

*523JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of CourierCorporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 25, 2004 towhich this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| *  January 25,  2005* | * * | By:                                                | *  s/Robert  P. Story, Jr.* | * * |
|--------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|----------|
| Date                                 |     | Robert P. Story, Jr.                               |
|                                 |     | Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Thiscertification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, nor shall it bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing, under the Securities Actof 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

----
#### Thomas Roger McDOUGALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Dec. 4, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

FAA- 2011 - 1285 Docket Number

2010 - SW - 073 -AD Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained

in the Supplemental AD Docket Eurocopter Em ergency ASB No s . BO105 - 10 - 124 and BO105LS - 10 - 12
**MA Y BE VIEWED AT:**  Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p .m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
#### David MARTIN, Junior, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1062.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### William James DARDEN, Jr., Appellant, v. Thomas J. MALONEY and Signa Maloney, Appellees.

No. 69-552.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 22, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**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**

Theundersigned officer of Courier Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifiesthat the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December30, 2006 to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| *  February 8, 2007* | * *                  | By:    | *   s/Peter M. Folger* | * * | * * |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|----------|----------|
| Date                           | Peter M. Folger           |   |                             |
| ** **                     | Senior Vice President and |   |                             |
|                           | Chief Financial Officer   |   |                             |

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, nor shallit be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing, under the SecuritiesAct of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

----
### Re: SO2 NAAQS RIA for OPEI / OMB review Kathy Kaufman to: Mary Henigin 10/19/2009 03:24 PM

Cc: Amy Lamson, Brian Heninger, Charlotte Bertrand, Darryl Weatherhead, David Misenheimer, James Hemby, Joseph-J Dougherty, Lydia Wegman, Nathalie Simon, Neal Fann, Ron Evans, Rosalina Rodriguez, "Alan Rush", Tricia Crabtree, Patricia Grim, Charles Fulcher Mary -- By this email OAQPS is transmitting to you Sections 1 through 4 of the Ozone Reconsideration NAAQS RIA Supplemental Analysis, to transmit to OPEI for OMB review. The sections are attached below. Thanks! -- Kathy

Kathy Kaufman EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C439-02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone 919 541 0102 Fax 919 541 5489
#### Barbara Rond HERRINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilmor G. HERRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11646.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

June 22, 1971.

George T. Anderson, Shreveport, for appellant.

Donald R. Miller, Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

Before BOLIN, HEARD, and HALL, JJ-

HEARD, Judge.

Appellant having neither appeared nor filed a brief prior to the date fixed for the submission of this case, the appeal is considered abandoned, and is dismissed. See Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2162; also Rule VII, Section 5(b), Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal, as revised July 1, 1963. (Louisiana Statutes Annotated, Revised Statute Volume 8, Page 392.)
that lien. The district court's decisions thus were based on an erroneous

interpretation of the controlling law and did not reach the other issues colorably asserted. Accordingly, we

VACATE the order denying preliminary injunctive relief, REVERSE the order granting the motion to dismiss, AND REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order. 

# A

Ct.t 

## AA; J. Hardesty

Douglas

CHERRY, J., concurring:

For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree that respondent lost its lien priority by virtue of the homeowners association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the disposition of these appeals. 

# a kanotiv Cherry cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge David A. Rosenberg Howard Kim & Associates Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk J.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1047A
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Paul GERSTENBERGER, Holly Tatsch.

No. 51384.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 13, 1971.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable John S. Covington, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 8th day of October, 1971, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondents through their attorneys shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32836]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-117-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

December 11, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 4, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia), 12801 Fair Lakes Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia 
22030-0146, filed in Docket No. CP98-117-000 a request pursuant to 
Sections 157.205, and 157.211, of the Commission's Regulations under 
the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) for authorization to 
construct and operate four delivery points under Columbia's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000 pursuant to Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Columbia requests authorization to construct and operate four 
delivery points in West Virginia and Ohio. Columbia states that the 
there is no impact on Columbia's existing design day and annual 
obligation. The estimated cost to install the taps is $150.00 per tap.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32836 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
256 La. 371

#### Branch WILLIAMS v. PETROLEUM HELICOPTERS, INC., et al.

No. 50649.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Branch Williams applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 234 So.2d 522.

The application is denied. The judgment complained of is correct.

See Johnson v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 256 La. 289, 236 So.2d 216.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted.

BARHAM, J., concurs.
#### Freddie M. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Reginald HINES, Warden; State of Oklahoma, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6095.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 26, 2002.

Freddie M Johnson, Lexington, OK, for Petitioner-Appellant.

*435Jennifer Blakeney Welch, Keeley Lane Harris, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respon-den1>-Appellee.

Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This is a pro se federal prisoner 28 U.S.C. § 2254 appeal. Mr. Johnson was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his habeas appeal, Mr. Johnson alleges that his sentence is unconstitutional for six reasons, each of which the magistrate judge addressed in a well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. On appeal, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report denying the petition for relief. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and “legal conclusions de novo.” *Rogers v. Gibson,*173 F.3d 1278, 1282 (10th Cir.1999).

Appellant seeks a certificate of appeala-bility. In order for this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To do so, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotations omitted).

We have carefully reviewed Petitioner’s brief, the district court’s disposition, the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Petitioner’s brief raises an issue which meets our standards for the grant of a certificate of appealability. We conclude that we cannot say that reasonable jurists could debate whether “the petition should have been resolved in a different manner.” *Id.*

Therefore, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                        Certification of CFO 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 Crested Corp. (the "Company") on
Form  10-Q  for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report"), Robert Scott Lorimer,
Chief  Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge,  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/ Robert Scott Lorimer
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Robert Scott Lorimer,
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             August 13, 2004


This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and  shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes  of  Section  18  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Crested Corp. and will be retained by Crested Corp. and furnished to
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
_____________

No. 95-3461

_____________

Herbert J. Brandenburg, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

United States of America, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Appeals from the United States

No. 96-1727 District Court for the

___________ Western District of Arkansas.

 [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Willie L. Ricks, Sr., *

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: September 4, 1996

 Filed: September 20, 1996

_____________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

This is a consolidated appeal. Herbert Brandenburg appeals
 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District

1

Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and

recommendations of the Honorable Beverly R. Stites, United States

Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District

2

Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He raised 1

the following issues: (1) denial of the right to a speedy trial; (2) denial

of due process by prosecutorial misconduct; (3) misinterpretation of

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B); (4) erroneous failure to apply U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2;

(5) failure to make express findings as to relevant conduct; and (6)

ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude the district court did not

err in denying relief and that an opinion would lack precedential value.

Co-defendant Willie L. Ricks appeals the district court's order denying

2

his motion to reduce his sentence. We likewise conclude the district court

did not err in finding that Ricks--by failing to provide the government

with all the information he possessed--did not fulfill the requirements of

18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8th

Cir. 1996) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Shirley LaBRUZZO and Joseph LaBruzzo, Appellants, v. Margaret DOERR, Appellee.

No. 73-589.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 14, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Thomas P. Kirkland, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of CourierCorporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2003 to whichthis certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.

 

 
| *  February 9, 2004* |   |   | By:    |  * s/James F. Conway III*               |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date                           |   |   |   | James F.  Conway III                              |
|                           |   |   |   | Chairman,  President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|                                |        |        |        |                                                   |        |  |

 

Thiscertification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, nor shall it bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing, under the Securities Actof 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

----
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

IN RE ROGER BLAIR

__________________________ 

2013-1591

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Serial No. 

11/783,909. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

Roger Blair moves to withdraw his appeal. 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

Case: 13-1591 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2013
IN RE BLAIR 2

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 16, 2013

s21

Case: 13-1591 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2013