alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6871
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EPHRAIM VANDORIAN STANCIL, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-89-237-R, CA-95-625-3) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ephraim Vandorian Stancil, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Stanley Glaser, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Stancil , Nos. CR-89-237-R; CA95-625-3 (M.D.N.C. May 20, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          36,894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  288,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,506
<INVENTORY>                                    176,178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               509,922
<PP&E>                                       1,229,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                 689,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,361,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          211,620
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,213
<OTHER-SE>                                     809,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,361,674
<SALES>                                        711,693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               711,693
<CGS>                                          512,102
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  512,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               113,007
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,714
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 71,326
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,038
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,203
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Craig DAIGRE.

No. 62174.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1978.

In re: Craig Daigre, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for stay order. Parish of Jefferson.

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 Louis DeSonier, Jr., Judge of the 24th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Jefferson, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 2nd day of June, 1978, 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 respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
No. 10095.

#### Davy et al. *v.*Aetna Life Insurance Co.

Decided June 9, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Miami county.

*Mr. William H. Gilbert*and *Mr. Leonard H. Shipman,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. A. F. Broomhall,*for defendant in error.

-Judgment affirmed on authority of *Davy et al. v. The Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co.,*78 Ohio St., 256.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Enzo J. Vialardi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Laboratories, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in 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
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 16, 2005

                                                     /s/ Enzo J. Vialardi
                                                     --------------------
                                                         Enzo J. Vialardi
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12015

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

LINDA CHASE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARTIN WALSH, et al.,

Defendants,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

Defendant-Appellee.

USCA11 Case: 23-12015 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2023 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12015

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 5:22-cv-00105-AW-HTC

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction 

because Linda Chase’s notice of appeal, filed on June 12, 2023, was 

untimely to appeal from the district court’s March 20, 2023 order 

and judgment dismissing her second amended complaint. See 

Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010); Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). 

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 23-12015 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2023 Page: 2 of 2
#### Barry W. BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-577.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 31, 1972.

Barry W. Brown, in pro per.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant *181having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard COLEMAN.

No. 61353.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1978.

In re: Richard Coleman, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of Calcasieu.

Writ denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6928-6929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3724]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-50; RM-8995]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Ocean Shores, WA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Ryan 
Broadcasting Company proposing the allotment of Channel 292A at Ocean 
Shores, Washington, as the community's first local aural transmission 
service. Channel 292A can be allotted to Ocean Shores in compliance 
with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at city 
reference coordinates. The coordinates for Channel 292A at Ocean Shores 
are North Latitude 46-57-47 and West Longitude 124-09-50. Since Ocean 
Shores is located within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-
Canadian border, concurrence of the Canadian government has been 
requested.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 31, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Henry 
E. Crawford, Esq., 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW., Suite 900, Washington, 
DC 20036 (Counsel for Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-50, adopted January 
31, 1997, and released February 7, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.


[[Page 6929]]


Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-3724 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

To the Board of Directors

NaturalNano, Inc.

 

We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Numbers 333-148163 and 333-132607 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 29, 2007 on the consolidated balance sheet of NaturalNano, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended and the cumulative amounts from December 22, 2004 (inception) to December 31, 2006, which appears in the December 31, 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of NaturalNano, Inc.

 

 

**GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP**

New York, New York

 

April 8, 2008
ORlGINAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~~"9~~ Z 2 20:08
 FEDERA TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 5t¡S 66Lj 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

) 

ORDER REQUIRIG EXPEDITED RESPONSES
 

On October 21,2009, Respondent submitted a motion for a protective order 

regarding the testimony of Philip Bryson. 

Also on October 21,2009, non-party Exide Technologies fied a motion to modify 

the protective order.
 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3 .22( c), the parties are hereby directed to file their 

responses to these motions by 2:00 p.m., October 23,2009. 

ORDERED: J: h~ CW
 D. Michaèi ap. 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: October 22, 2009
^
                                  Diamond Hill
                                  ------------
                                  Investments


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
                                             Investor Contact:
                                             James F. Laird
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             614-255-3353
                                             E-mail: (jlaird@diamond-hill.com)

                    DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENTS ANNOUNCES
                  WILLIAM DIERKER JOINS INVESTMENT TEAM

     Columbus,  Ohio -- October 2, 2006, -- Diamond Hill Investment Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ:DHIL) today announced that William C. Dierker joined the equity
investment team as a portfolio manager.  Mr. Dierker, who is a graduate of
Xavier University and holds the CFA designation, will serve as co-portfolio
manager of the Diamond Hill Select mutual fund and separately managed
portfolios.  Mr. Dierker has over 17 years of portfolio management experience,
including five years at Nationwide Insurance where he worked with several
members of the Diamond Hill investment team.  Chuck Bath, Diamond Hill's
managing director of equities, said, "We are very pleased that Bill has joined
our investment team, he shares our investment philosophy and I know from
personal experience that he is an excellent investor."

About Diamond Hill:
     Diamond Hill provides investment management services to individuals and
institutions seeking to preserve and build wealth. The firm currently manages
mutual funds, separate accounts and a private investment fund.  For more
information on Diamond Hill, visit www.diamond-hill.com.


                                     ###

            325 John H. McConnell Blvd., Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43215
                         614-255-3333  fax 614-255-3363
#### Geo. J. BAYA and Mary Phillips Baya, his wife, Petitioners, v. Robert REVITZ, Respondent.

No. 44507.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 25, 1974.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
258 La. 581

#### Michael T. MIDDLETON v. Bertrand DE BLANC, District Attorney, Fifteenth Judicial District.

No. 51394.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 13, 1971.

In re: Michael T. Middleton applying for writ of mandamus.

Application denied. The criminal charge pending against relator in the Fifteenth Judicial District has been dismissed. The matter is moot.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33204]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2667]


Determination With Respect to Countries Providing Sanctuary to 
Indicted War Criminals

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 573(d) of the 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-118), I hereby determine that 
Serbia and Montenegro and the Republika Srpska Entity of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina and failed to take necessary and significant steps to 
apprehend and transfer to the International Criminal Tribunal for the 
Former Yugoslavia (the ``Tribunal'') all persons who have been publicly 
indicted by the Tribunal.
    This determination shall be provided to the Congress and published 
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 4, 1997.
Madeleine Albright,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 97-33204 Filed 12-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-01-M
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION***


**(Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer)**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officers of WindsorTech, Inc. hereby certify, to such
      officers’ knowledge, that:






(1)
      the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of WindsorTech, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with
      the with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:
                November 14, 2005
            
            /s/
                Marc ShermanMarc
                Sherman
              Chairman
                of the Board and
              Chief
                Executive OfficerDate:
                November 14, 2005
            
            /s/
                Edward L. CummingsEdward
                L. Cummings
              Chief
                Financial Officer





__________________


*
      The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
      or
      after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
      such
      filing.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 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.
EX-10.(q)(a)



 Exhibit 10(q)(A) 

SCHEDULE OF CHANGE IN CONTROL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS 

In accordance with the Instructions to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the Registrant has omitted filing Change in Control Employment Agreements by and
between P. H. Glatfelter Company and the following employees as exhibits to the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 because they are substantially identical to the Form of Change in Control Employment Agreement by and between P. H.
Glatfelter Company and certain employees, which is filed as Exhibit 10(r) to the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. 
  

	
	Brian E. Janki
	Kent K. Matsumoto
June 1, 2015 

Mr. Samuel Rodriguez 

114B Naubuc Avenue 

Glastonbury, CT 16033 

Dear Mr. Rodriguez: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 30, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1362), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure