alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Morris FOX and Jean Fox, his wife, Appellees.

No. 72-1008.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 1, 1973.

Stuart Simon, County Atty., ■ and St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., for appellant.

Dubbin, Schiff, Berkman & Dubbin, Miami, for appellees.

*53Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Manilow v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1968, 213 So.2d 589, cert. discharged, Fla. 1969, 226 So.2d 805 (adopting 3rd DCA opinion); Kugel v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 282; Burritt v. Harris, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 820; Tollius v. City of Miami, Fla. 1957, 96 So.2d 122; Forde v. City of Miami Beach, 146 Fla. 676, 1 So.2d 642 (1941) ; Town of Surfside v. Andrews, Fla. App. 1967, 193 So.2d 207; Shearer v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 501; Town of Palm Beach v. Leach, Fla.App. 1966, 185 So.2d 743; Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 355; and Lawley v. Town of Golfview, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 767.
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





The
undersigned, James Wemett,, Acting Chief Financial Officer, of NaturalNano, Inc.
(the “Company”) certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and  results  of operations of the Company.





Dated:  April
9, 2010




/s/ James WemettJames
      WemettActing
      Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)




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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4725

JERRY INDUSTRIOUS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-00-20)

Submitted: October 24, 2001

Decided: November 26, 2001

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Paul C. Pooley, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H.

White, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Jerry Industrious was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas of one

count each of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On

appeal, he alleges that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motions to withdraw his guilty plea. Finding no reversible

error, we affirm. 

Industrious possesses no absolute right to withdraw his plea of

guilty. United States v. Ewing, 957 F.2d 115, 118 (4th Cir. 1992). We

review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Lambert, 994 F.2d 1088, 1093 (4th Cir.

1993). The district court’s factual findings in support of its decision

to deny the motion will be overturned only if they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Suter, 755 F.2d 523, 525 (7th Cir. 1985). In light

of the thorough nature of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, see United

States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995), and the district

court’s consideration of Industrious’ motions, we cannot conclude

that the district court abused its discretion in declining to allow Industrious to withdraw his plea. United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245,

248 (4th Cir. 1991). 

Accordingly, we affirm Industrious’ convictions and sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. INDUSTRIOUS
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Albert Blankenship, Chief Financial Officer and Director (Principal
Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby certify, that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of The Banker's Store,
    Inc.;

2.  based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
    statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in
    order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
    such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
    by this quarterly report;

3.  based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
    material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
    flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
    quarterly report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
    establishing and maintaining "disclosure controls and procedures" for the
    registrant and have:

    a)    have designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information is made known to them, particularly during the
          period in which the periodic report is being prepared;

    b)    have evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
          controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
          filing date of the report; and

    c)    have presented in the report their conclusions about the effectiveness
          of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required
          evaluation as of the date;

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed to the
    registrant's auditors and to the board of directors:

    a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

    b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
    quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
    controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
    controls subsequent to the date of our evaluation, including any corrective
    actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


/s/ ALBERT BLANKENSHIP
----------------------
Albert Blankenship,
Chief Financial Officer

April 19, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-391]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board will meet in closed session on 
January 29-30, April 30-May 1, and October 22-23, 1997 at the Pentagon, 
Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Defense Science Board will discuss interim findings and tentative 
recommendations resulting from ongoing Task Force activities. The Board 
will also discuss plans for future consideration of scientific and 
technical aspects of specific strategies, tactics, and policies as they 
may affect the U.S. national defense posture.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly 
these meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: January 2, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-391 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Fw: Docket EPA--HQ--OAR--2007--0352-1061

Michael Stewart to: Tricia Crabtree 04/06/2010 12:05 PM

Please docket

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-7524

stewart.michael@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/06/2010 12:05 PM -----

From: Edmund Crouch <crouch@CambridgeEnvironmental.com>

To: Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/06/2010 11:55 AM

Subject: Re: Docket EPA--HQ--OAR--2007--0352-1061

Dear Mr. Stewart

I submitted EPA--HQ--OAR--2007--0352-1061 and 1061.1 back in February. Recently I located 

an error in that analysis that results in minor changes to the numbers calculated. For your 

convenience I am therefore sending a corrected version of the submission, attached to this email. 

The changes are described on the front page. Of course, you are free to do what you like with it.

Sincerely

-- 

Edmund A.C. Crouch, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Cambridge Environmental Inc

58 Charles Street

Cambridge, MA 02141

Office: 617-225-0810

Fax: 617-225-0813

http://www.CambridgeEnvironmental.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              THIS   SCHEDULE    CONTAINS   SUMMARY    FINANCIAL
                              INFORMATION    EXTRACTED    FROM   THE   FINANCIAL
                              STATEMENTS   AS  OF  DECEMBER   31,  1996  AND  IS
                              QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
                              STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         863557
<NAME>                        SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,210
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,997
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,904
<PP&E>                                         370,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                  95,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 380,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,966
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                     226,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   380,605
<SALES>                                        562,259
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               562,259
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  508,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (739)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,790
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,422
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,422
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
        

</TABLE>
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Ronorable Albert J. Hutsoa, Sr. 

county Attorney 

Trinity County 

c7moeton. swaa 

teabent of publie inatruati&a lc 

aa selatant the authority to ap14 drawn against nehool dfatrlota 

01 5. Art. 2693. 

eposltory bank of a rchool dl8trlot 

,011. a logal* drawn warrant, that ha 

been approved by aa ASSXS‘EUST Superintendent of 

?ublic Instruotion, an4 euoh warrant was f6r the 

benefit of tho sohool dlstrtot, would the sohoal 

dlstrlot bs authorlmd to rac)ovOr the aoney paid 

on suoh warrant from the Uep~sito~~ baatrO 
Honorable Albert 5. Hutson, Jr., Page 2 

"1 think the anrrwef to thle quostlon is *no*. 

Gem kfoody vs. Chosrhrr, 183 LX. 23. 

Vour pmnpt an8wera to the above question8 

will be greetlg t@preo16teU.w 

In vlmr of the prorlelon 'of the state Constiixtlon 

oited in your letter and the holdiq of the .iuprene Cw.rt in 

the casa or Carpenter ~8. Shrppard.et al,- ,145 3. :v. (26) 562, 

St la the opinion or this dbparta@nC that your rirst :ilmtion 

should ba answered in the efflnnatlv~ sad is SO answered. 

-+ tillnk that nr ur eeooJl& qusstloa an4 third quution 

me anawen4 in our opi ona Nos. O-1507 an&O-1507-A. Therefore, we are scoloaing oopler o!' them oplnlotm in answer to 

thee0 questions. 

Ye dLS0 ~biOmt3 0Opi0~ Qr OUr ~Opik~~9 NO& 0-604-A 

ad C-3295 pertainiry to similar guaetfona rwardlng a ooubty 

~ckool superintendent under tha faots state4 In tIma@ uplnlone. 

Trusting that the foregoing fully ansvmra your inqulry, we rre
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4798

ALPHONZO R. GRIFFIN, a/k/a Fuzzy,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.

William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-96-907, CA-97-2987-6-21)

Submitted: August 24, 1999

Decided: September 29, 1999

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges,

and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Kurt Tavernier, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. E. Jean

Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alphonzo R. Griffin appeals his conviction and sentence after a

guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to

distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 846 (1994). Griffin's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in

his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Griffin was

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he failed

to file one.

Following a de novo review of the record, we find that the district

court complied with all the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Griffin's

guilty plea. See United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir.

1995) (providing standard); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. We also find no

plain error in the calculation of Griffin's sentence. In particular, Griffin was correctly sentenced as a career offender. He was over eighteen

years old when he committed the instant felony offense, which

involved a controlled substance, and he had two prior felony convictions. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual§ 4B1.1 (1995).

In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have reviewed

the record for potential error and have found none. Therefore, we

affirm Griffin's conviction and sentence. This court requires that

counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave

to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. 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 in the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
## Draft Proposal CB-17

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC). Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/ commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/



## Floor Insulation (CB-17)

Objective: Ensure that insulation applied in floors over outside air or unconditioned spaces is in contact

with the underside of the floor deck above.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Section C402.2.5 as follows:

C402.2.5 Floors over outdoor air or unconditioned space

. The minimum thermal resistance (R-value)

of the insulating materials installed either between the floor framing or continuously on the floor

assembly shall be as specified in Table C402.2, b ased on construction materials used in the floor

assembly. Insulation applied on the side of the floor assembly facing outdoor air or unconditioned space

shall be installed to maintain permanent cont act with the underside of the floor assembly.

Reason: There is no need to indicate in the title anything other than floors because the overall focus of

Section 402 is the building thermal envelope, which as defined eliminates the need to further specify

any particular conditions associated with the floor. The provisions in R402.2.7 are equally applicable to

floor assemblies in commercial buildings where insulation batts for instance may be installed in a floor

framing assembly. The need to eliminate a space between the insulation and the underside of the floor

is equally applicable in commercial buildings, many of which use the same construction practices as

residential buildings.

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 264 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 264

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1101 Charlotte Street in Georgetown, South Carolina, as the ``Joseph 
             Hayne Rainey Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JOSEPH HAYNE RAINEY MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1101 Charlotte Street in Georgetown, South Carolina, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Joseph Hayne Rainey Memorial Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Joseph 
Hayne Rainey Memorial Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 23, 2021.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 264

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1101 Charlotte Street in Georgetown, South Carolina, as the ``Joseph 
             Hayne Rainey Memorial Post Office Building''.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7447

BERNARD BARNES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

R. ALLEN; T. BLOW; D. BRIGGS; N. E. WHITLOW,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-237-3)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order adopting the

magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing without

prejudice this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). The

order is not appealable because the defect on which the dismissal

was based could be cured by amending the complaint. See Domino

Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th

Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over

this appeal and it must be dismissed.

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
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Certification


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amcast Industrial Corporation (the
"Issuer") on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 29, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joseph R. Grewe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



By /s/ Joseph R. Grewe
     ------------------
     Joseph R. Grewe
     President and Chief Executive Officer
     March 30, 2004