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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6097

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CURTIS LAVON BRANCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (4:11-cr-00082-F-1; 4:13-cv-00028-F)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Lavon Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpening, 

Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Lavon Branch seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Branch 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
256 La. 907

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Terry Lamar JENKINS.

No. 50927.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1970.

In re: Terry Lamar Jenkins applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writs refused. Determination of in-digency at this stage of the proceedings is premature. This is not to be construed as approval of the trial court’s previous determination of non-indigency based alone on the income and property of defendant’s mother.
#### RIVER SHORES, INC., Appellant, v. RIVER SHORES ASSOCIATION, INC., and the Zack Company, Appellees.

No. 74-13.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 19, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Russell Seay, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,048,707
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,381,285
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     45,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,523,307
<PP&E>                                       8,607,771
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,131,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,118
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,782,504
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,630,442
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,131,078
<SALES>                                        204,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               204,052
<CGS>                                           78,729
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  523,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (319,727)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (319,727)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (319,727)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### SAXONY HOTEL and Employers Service Corporation, Petitioners, v. Walter MACIAS and the Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 42438.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 16, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.2



                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                   (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
                  Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)


         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Cone Mills Corporation, a North Carolina
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: August 9, 2002                /s/ John L. Bakane
                                     ------------------
                                     John L. Bakane
                                     Chief Executive Officer



Dated: August 9, 2002               /s/ Gary L. Smith
                                    -----------------
                                    Gary L. Smith
                                    Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed
as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
Cherry

Douglas , • Parraguirre

2 k.%..ai2TraV;t2Bfr.,ZirZfZi2.2ttlA GISTARVE RUFFIN, JR., Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. No. 68248



### ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS These are pro se appeals from judgments of conviction. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Jerome M. Polaha, Judge.

The notices of appeal were untimely filed. NRAP 4(b); NRS 34.575(1); NRAP 26(a); NRAP 26(c). Because an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court, 

### Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994), we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals, and we

ORDER these appeals DISMISSED.

cc: Hon. Jerome M. Polaha, District Judge Gistarve Ruffin, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) I94Th cOOP
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Golub Capital BDC, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Registrant”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ross A. Teune, as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my 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 results of operations of the Registrant.

/s/ Ross A. TeuneName: Ross A. TeuneTitle:  Chief Financial Officer





Date: November 16, 2016
# Rupprecht Law P. A. 3 24 Datura Street , Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 P: (561) 222 - 6979 | E : jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com August 12 , 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12 - 140, Washington, DC 20590 RE: Receipt of co nfidentially submitted material for Stray Media Group, LLC Dear Sir or Madam: Stray Media Group, LLC ( Docket ID: FAA - 2015 - 3432 ) confidentially submitted to 333exemptions@faa.gov the follow material : 1) Motion Picture & Television Operations Manual A receipt was obtained on Tue, August 11 , 2015 . If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me at (561)222 - 6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com Sincerely yours,

_____________________ Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-171152 on Form S-8
of our report dated March 25, 2011 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the plan of reorganization and the emergence from bankruptcy),
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Hawaiian Telcom Holdco, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 (Successor) and December 31, 2009 (Predecessor) and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity (deficiency), and cash flows for the two months ended December 31, 2010 (Successor) and for the ten months ended
October 31, 2010 and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2009 (Predecessor), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hawaiian Telcom
Holdco, Inc for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Honolulu,
Hawaii
March 25, 2011

---



QuickLinks
#### James F. MURDOCK, Appellant, v. C. P. Cowboy LUTTRALL and Deep South Sports, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. M-15.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 12, 1970.

*429P. Donald DeHoff, and Herbert Williams, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Sears, Dunlap & Sears, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final declaratory judgment rendered in favor of appellees. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment and the correctness as a matter of law of the trial court’s construction of the contract sued upon.

In our review of the issues presented for decision we duly considered the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Although the testimony and evidence revealed by the record is conflicting, when considered in a light most favorable to the prevailing party it cannot be held that the findings made and conclusions reached by the trier of the facts are not without substantial support. By the same token it must be held that the intent of the parties as shown by the evidence clearly supports the construction placed upon, the contract by the judgment appealed. The findings and conclusions as expressed in the final judgment will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the court committed error or that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.1 The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

1

. Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson (Fla.App.1965) 177 So.2d 50; Stoller v. Jaffe (Fla.App.1961) 125 So.2d 310.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              82
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,236
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        802
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,287
<PP&E>                                           3,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,093
<BONDS>                                          2,034
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        160
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                         804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,027
<SALES>                                          4,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            2,316
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    493
<INCOME-TAX>                                       175
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                306
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       306
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR COX COMMUNICATIONS
EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,357
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  195,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (8,563)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,167,447
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,248,510)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,168,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     (4,836)
<COMMON>                                      (555,146)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (16,168,739)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            (1,008,425)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  326,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               282,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             122,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,253,191
<INCOME-TAX>                                   496,179
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            757,012
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   757,012
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.36<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS BASIC AND EPS DILUTED HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT A TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK
SPLIT ON MAY 21, 1999. PRIOR FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULES HAVE NOT BEEN RESTATED.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### In re Dennis SLADEK and Diana Sladek, Debtors, Diana Sladek, Appellant, v. Sally J. Zeman, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellee.

No. 01-1517.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 29, 2002.

Stephen Hyde Swift, Colorado Springs, CO, for Debtors.

Chad S. Caby, Denver, CO, for Appellee.

Before HENRY and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

*449ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and 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.

Diana Sladek appeals from the district court’s order affirming rulings of the bankruptcy court in the underlying case. She contends that the bankruptcy court erred in disallowing two exemptions from the debtors’ bankruptcy estate for claims involving the probate of her father’s estate in Florida. She also challenges the bankruptcy court’s ruling granting a motion of the trustee to reconvert the case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7. She asserts that the district court erred in affirming these decisions.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. *See Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain,*503 U.S. 249, 252, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). Our review of the bankruptcy court’s legal determinations is de novo and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error. *Phillips v. White (In re White),*25 F.3d 931, 933 (10th Cir.1994). “It is especially important to be faithful to the clearly erroneous standard when the bankruptcy court’s findings have been upheld by the district court.” *Osborn v. Durant Bank & Trust Co. (In re Osborn),*24 F.3d 1199, 1203 (10th Cir.1994).

After careful review of the parties’ briefs and appendices in light of the applicable law and appellate standards, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the reasons set out in the district court’s order dated October 12, 2001, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.

*

 This ordej; 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.
1 

### Ogulei, David

From: **Nancy L Paddock <nancy.paddock@veoliaes.com>** Sent: **Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:51 AM** To: **Ogulei, David** Cc: **Dennis J Warchol** Subject: **TWI boiler designation**

Hi David,

Dennis and I spoke this morning about the possibili ty of our boiler being an area source as opposed to a major source. This is a different perspective for us and we’d like to understand all aspects of this approa ch before making a decision. I will get back to you as soon as possib le once we’ve had an opportunity to digest things.

Thank you!

Nancy L. Paddock Environmental Engineering Specialist Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.
7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, IL 62201 618.271.2804 (ext-115) 618.271.2128 (fax)

**Nancy.Paddock@VeoliaES.com www.VeoliaES.com** 

**This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Soluti ons, LLC is for the sole use of the intended recipi**  **ent(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. A**  **ny unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribu tion is prohibited. If**  **you are not the intended recipient, please communic ate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all**  **copies of the original message and delete it from all computers.**
#### CHARLES SALES CORP. OF ORLANDO, etc., Petitioner, v. AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, etc., Respondent.

No. 40373.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 239 So.2d 654.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
U.S. Position on AfDB’s Loan to the National Industrial and Mining Company (SNIM) in

Mauritania

November 22, 2017

The United States would like to be recorded as abstaining on this project due to disclosure 

issues and concern about its weak development impact.

With respect to disclosure, the summary environment and social impact assessment (ESIA)

was not disclosed 120 days prior to this Board date, which is considered good practice in 

transparency. Given the project’s significant expected environmental impact, U.S. legislation 

requires an abstention.

In addition, the United States questions the value that the Bank is providing in this operation 

(other than long-term financing with a generous, two-year grace period). SNIM’s record in 

carrying out earlier AfDB operations is mixed. The 2009 investment in a new iron ore 

processing facility in Guelb experienced significant delays and cost overruns. 

It is also not clear the degree to which this project will have broader development impact in 

the community by benefiting small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as it does not have any 

deep community linkages to enable longer-term job creation. 

Finally, the United States questions why AfDB is making a $50 million loan for a project that 

is not directly consistent with the Mauritania’s Country Strategy Paper (CSP).