alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KIMBERLY MICHAELS DIPADOVA , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 5:15

- cr - 00069

- RJC

- DCK

- 1; 5:18

- cv 00135

- RJC )

Submitted : June 27, 2019 Decided: July 30, 2019

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kimberly Michaels Dipadova, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this c ircuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kimberly Michaels Dipadova seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on her 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 thi s 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). W hen 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 48 4

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dipadova 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 conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 99.2
Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002)



I, Stewart A. Jackson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of  World  Ventures Inc., certify, to the best of  my  knowledge,
based  upon  a review of the Annual Report on Form 20-F  for  the
period ended October 31, 2002 of World Ventures Inc. that:

  (1)   The  Annual Report on Form 20-F fully complies  with  the
     requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934, as amended; and

  (2)  The information contained and incorporated by reference in
     the Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     World Ventures Inc.


/s/ Stewart A. Jackson
-----------------------
Stewart A. Jackson
Vice President (Chief Financial Officer)
May 5, 2003



A  SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY  SECTION
906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO WORLD VENTURES INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED
BY  WORLD  VENTURES  INC. AND FURNISHED  TO  THE  SECURITIES  AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
j^^ll«®W0FCR|||,NALAppEAU

JAM 08 2015

Usas i-or warded ~Lb your CaurL tor Consid trek) on .

~7rU( Ccarf C*us*. A/0. t&ZXl+Cp (P>ToUr\ burly) UJr'rL C«us<l A/6. Cfl 27.9¥t-t) \ Rrouin C„unhy)

ffcaSiL Uh m e Knour 2Jou f€ce;i/«J 'rfz .

n>ny lxJr\±: A/umb^r. TAo.ak

/?/*>,

jOUckS<L S<?n J -7^76. yotf,

?ny CuLkAA^ Qzrx'tho l/aSFUeZ- D'fCLZ_

4tlcT<f707( •

_

Dick Uxre Un,±

IL>XIS: FAA 3525

-

Color*Jo C;iY/TK, 7?S 12. '

-TkanK you -K>r youf a s^i'iianceL 'is\~Lk'<$ mcdk%r.

i5~tr\C<-r< W VourS , '•

TS-XsnJjUr-

/ / >

_Qjl&/j1

k

-

,

.

• > . • .•

'

' ,'• ' ' ••'•.••''

)

' •'•''.. ' •" •
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Aaron N. Daniels, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Argon ST, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s second fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: May 9, 2008   /s/ Aaron N. Daniels Aaron N. Daniels  Chief Financial Officer  
33
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0429. DECK PRO, INC. v. JOY RENEE RUCKS.

In this civil action, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of plaintiff

Joy Rucks on her claim for breach of contract on November 13, 2019. Defendant

Deck Pro, Inc. filed a notice of appeal on December 16, 2019. We lack jurisdiction.

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or trial

court order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing

of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer appellate jurisdiction on this

Court. Perlman v. Perlman, 318 Ga. App. 731, 739 (4) (734 SE2d 560) (2012). Deck

Pro’s notice of appeal was untimely filed 33 days after entry of the order it seeks to

appeal.

1Consequently,we lack jurisdiction overthis untimely appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Deck Pro’s assertion in its notice of appeal that the thirtieth day after

November 13, 2019, fell on Saturday, December 14, 2019, is misplaced. The thirtieth

day fell on Friday, December 13, 2019. See OCGA § 1-3-1 (d) (3).

April 19, 2021

04/19/2021
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33072]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CA-067-7123-6683]


Establishment of Supplementary Rule for Parking/Camping 
Restrictions Along California State Hwy. 78 in the Imperial Sand Dunes.

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.

ACTION: Establishment of supplementary rule.

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

SUMMARY: The primary purpose of this supplementary rule is to prohibit 
parking or camping within 25 feet of California State Hwy. 78 where it 
passes through the Imperial Sand Dunes. This rule would reduce the 
potential of serious injury or death to both campers and drivers as 
they recreate in or pass through this area of the Imperial Sand Dunes.
    1. No person may park a vehicle or camp within 25 feet of 
California State Hwy. 78 where it passes through the Imperial Sand 
Dunes. This prohibition will extend along both sides of Hwy. 78 from 
the intersection of Hwy. 78 and the Coachella Canal easterly to the 
intersection of Hwy. 78 and the Glamis Flats off ramp.
    Background: In the past, hundreds of off highway vehicle (OHV) 
enthusiasts have parked immediately adjacent to Hwy. 78 during the 
winter and spring months. They car-camp out of sedans, trucks and RV's. 
By camping along this stretch of the highway, they expose themselves 
and their children to a high potential of being struck by traffic along 
the highway. Campers step out into the line of traffic in their normal 
meandering around their campsite, when they work on their vehicles or 
in the process of loading or unloading their trailers and trucks. In 
addition, they pose a serious hazard to passing motorists who must 
swerve to try to avoid hitting them. Hwy. 78 is a major truck route 
through Imperial County and traffic travels at 65 MPH in this area. The 
chances of a serious accident due to a blown tire, sleepy driver or 
other vehicle or driver malfunction is greatly increased with such 
large crowds lining the side of the highway.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective upon date of publication and will remain in 
effect until rescinded or modified by the authorized officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief Area Ranger Robert Zimmer, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro 
Field Office, 1661 S. 4th St., El Centro, CA 92243; (760) 337-4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The authority for this restriction is 
provided in 43 CFR 8365.1-6. Violation of this restriction is 
punishable by a fine not to exceed $100,000.00 and/or imprisonment not 
to exceed 12 months.

    Dated: December 10, 1997.
Terry Reed,
Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-33072 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-M
#### Constantine KITSOS and Anthony Karamanlakis, jointly and severally, Appellants, v. FLORIDA BIBLE COLLEGE, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-623.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 14, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32



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







In connection with the quarterly report of Decorator Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, William A. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael K. Solomon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|      |                 |  |     |                                            
|----- | --------------- |  | --- | -------------------------------------------
|Date: | August 18, 2009 |  | By: | /s/ William A. Johnson                     
|      |                 |  |     | William A. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer
|      |                 |  |     |                                            
|      |                 |  |     |                                            
|Date: | August 18, 2009 |  | By: | /s/ Michael K. Solomon                     
|      |                 |  |     | Michael K. Solomon, Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6685

VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus G. WASHINGTON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-624-3-RLW) Submitted: September 19, 2005 Decided: September 30, 2005 Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and his motion to reconsider. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-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 Williams 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
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2175 

To prohibit certain heads of Federal agencies and Administrations from 

imposing a mask requirement on certain domestic transportation, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2021 

Mr. STEWART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain heads of Federal agencies and Administrations from imposing a mask requirement on certain 

domestic transportation, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Mask Mandate for 

5 Kids Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON MASK REQUIREMENT ON CER7 TAIN DOMESTIC MODES OF TRANSPOR8 TATION. 

9 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2175 IH

1 (1) There has been no reasonable scientific 

2 backing to support the Federal requirement that 

3 children wear masks. 

4 (2) Any directives regarding the wearing of 

5 masks should be decided by industries, States, and 

6 localities. 

7 (b) RESTRICTION.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of 

9 Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Transpor10 tation (including through the Administrator of the Federal 

11 Aviation Administration), the Secretary of Homeland Se12 curity (including through the Administrator of the Trans13 portation Security Administration and the Commandant 

14 of the United States Coast Guard), and the heads of any 

15 other executive departments and agencies that have rel16 evant regulatory authority may not impose any require17 ment for masks to be worn in or on— 

18 (1) airports; 

19 (2) commercial aircraft; 

20 (3) trains; 

21 (4) public maritime vessels, including ferries; 

22 (5) intercity bus services; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2175 IH

1 (6) all forms of public transportation (as such 

2 term is defined in section 5302 of title 49, United 

3 States Code). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7143 

To repeal the military surplus program under title 10, United States Code. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 8, 2020 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ (for herself, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. NORTON, 

Mr. ESPAILLAT, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan, and Ms. 

OCASIO-CORTEZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To repeal the military surplus program under title 10, United 

States Code. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Demilitarizing Local 

5 Law Enforcement Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT 

7 TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 153 of title 10, United 

9 States Code, is amended by striking section 2576a. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7143 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

2 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by striking 

3 the item relating to section 2576a. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1**
**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Jerry Moyes, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Swift Transportation Co., Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 8, 2005         /s/  Jerry Moyes   Jerry Moyes   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Thomas J. DIRICKSON, Appellant, v. Anne J. SMITH, Appellee.

No. 73-669.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 26, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Indian River County; A. Pfeiffer Trowbridge, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Willie HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-447.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 24, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM LYNTON GROUP, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                OCT-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                           637,022
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                  1,723,571   
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                      790,129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               3,314,354
<PP&E>                        17,717,978
<DEPRECIATION>                 4,339,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                22,789,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          5,634,255
<BONDS>                       12,422,083
<COMMON>                       1,918,462
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                     1,974,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  22,789,301
<SALES>                       12,083,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              12,083,282
<CGS>                          9,261,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 11,082,672 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  38,674
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               515,419
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  446,517
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              446,517
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                     446,517
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                        .07
        

</TABLE>