alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6629
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KELVIN TYRONE FIELDINGS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-03-78; CA-04-113-4) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 2, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin Tyrone Fieldings, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kelvin Tyrone Fieldings seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fieldings has not made the requisite showing. The only issue Fieldings asserts on appeal is that he did not agree to dismiss in the district court a claim from his § 2255 motion. This court is not the appropriate forum in which to raise this claim. Rather, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a party may move the district court for relief from a final judgment or order based upon any reason justifying relief. Because Fieldings failed to make a sufficient showing as to the claim raised on appeal and failed to present any other issue, see 4th Cir. Local Rule 34(b),- 3 - 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
#### Rudolph C. KORB, Appellant, v. J. Douglas PAYNE, Appellee.

No. 70-854.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 26, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2023296EN.01000501.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — DB v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-510/21, (1) Austrian Airlines (First aid on board an aircraft))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 17(1) - Liability of air carriers for death or injury sustained by passengers - Concept of ‘accident’ - Bodily injuries aggravated by first aid administered following an accident that took place on board an aircraft)

(2023/C 296/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DB

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001,

must be interpreted as meaning that the inadequate first aid administered on board an aircraft to a passenger, which aggravated the bodily injuries caused by an ‘accident’, within the meaning of that provision, must be regarded as forming part of that accident.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         254,442
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    305,742
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      14,061,245
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        13,748,463
<LOANS>                                     31,683,917
<ALLOWANCE>                                    234,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,847,884
<DEPOSITS>                                  27,726,782
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,583,855
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            705,956
<LONG-TERM>                                 13,521,580
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,795
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,293,916
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              48,847,884
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,132,702
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              108,945
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               443,299
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,684,946
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             698,323
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,134,788
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          550,158
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,811
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                202,347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                416,416
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     259,196
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   259,196
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.62
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.52
<LOANS-NON>                                    210,127
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 4,053
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 39,128
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               232,134
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      620
<RECOVERIES>                                       181
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              234,834
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           234,834
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0




</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 134 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 134

    Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to cause the 
           publication of Members signing a discharge motion.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 1993

 Mr. Inhofe (for himself, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Gunderson, Mr. 
Hastert, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Collins of 
    Georgia, Mr. Condit, Mr. Pete Geren of Texas, Mr. Brewster, Mr. 
 Slattery, and Mr. Laughlin) submitted the following resolution; which 
                 was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to cause the 
           publication of Members signing a discharge motion.

    Resolved, That clause 3 of rule XXVII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by inserting after the fourth sentence the 
following new sentence: ``Once a motion to discharge has been filed, 
the Clerk shall make the signatures a matter of public record.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Charlie W. ASHBURN, Appellant, v. Dr. M. S. FOX, Appellee.

No. 69-491.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 14, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 6, 1970.

Thomas D. O’Malley, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray, and Paul R. Larkin, Jr., Dean, Adams, George & Wood, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The only point involved in this case is whether or not, in a malpractice case, medical experts or doctors can testify as to the proper standard of care to be used by an osteopath in diagnosing a cancerous condition. The trial court held that said experts could not so testify because they indicated they were not familiar with the standard of care normally used in the community by osteopaths.

As clearly pointed out by the Supreme Court of Florida in Foster v. Thornton, 125 Fla. 699, 170 So. 459, their testimony would be admissible under the circumstances of the existing case. In said opinion, the following is found at page 463:

> * * **** * *

> “ * * * It does not exclude the testimony of physicians of other schools or experts in other lines when that testi*841mony bears on a point as to which the principles of the schools do or should concur, such as the dangers incident to the use of X-rays or the existence of a condition that should be recognized by any physician. 21 R.C.L. 383; 22 C.J. 661. In Longan v. Weltmer, 180 Mo. 322, 79 S.W. 655, 64 L.R.A. 969, 103 Am. St.Rep. 573, it was held that any person qualified by education and experience may testify whether the treatment which plaintiff underwent was proper.”

> >jc j{{ ;{<

See also this court’s opinion in Musachia v. Terry, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 605; Hawkins v. Schofman, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 336.

Therefore, the final judgment based upon the directed verdict here under review be and the same is hereby reversed, with directions to grant the plaintiff a new trial.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32


                  WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                        FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
           OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
              AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH RULE 13a-14(b)
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

In connection with the Annual Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund II
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
the Company respectively, each hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such
officer's knowledge, that: (a) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for
the year ended December 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (b)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     George S. Springsteen
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     March 30, 2004



                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Kimberly A. Springsteen
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                     March 30, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification

I, Howard E. Ehler, certify that:

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GeoResources, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard E. Ehler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Howard E. EhlerHoward E. EhlerChief Financial OfficerAugust 11, 2008
Jacket: 671-185 R-1

Title: Envelopes

Agency: Treasury/IRS

Bid Opening: June 28, 2022 at 11:00am

Bid Terms Discounted Total

$309,547.74 0.5% 20 days $308,000.00

$750,000.00 0.025% 0 days $750,000.00

$990,650.00 0.0% 0 days $990,650.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

days $0.00

Real Estate Image, Inc.

Contractor Name

Noor Almahaba Company

Printing Resources Inc.

AWARDED
254 *La. 783*

#### Evelyn GOINS et vir v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY.

No. 50025.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 8, 1969.

In re: Oliver Goins and his wife Evelyn Goins applying- for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vernon. 223 So.2d 435.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
# C_2020433EN.01005801.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/58

---

Action brought on 1 October 2020 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission

(Case T-614/20)

(2020/C 433/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Casino, Guichard-Perrachon (Saint-Étienne, France) (represented by: O. de Juvigny, A. Sunderland, I. Simic and G. Aubron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Decision C(2020) 5192 final of the European Commission of 23 July 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Decision C(2020) 5192 final of the European Commission of 23 July 2020;

| — | order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful, to the extent that it was adopted on the basis of documents obtained by the Commission during pre-inspections carried out on the basis of unlawful decisions, subject to applications for annulment in Cases T-249/17, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission, and T-538/19, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         391,357
<SECURITIES>                                    60,872
<RECEIVABLES>                                  528,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    297,436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,308,349
<PP&E>                                      19,501,083
<DEPRECIATION>                            (14,536,535)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,493,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          885,881
<BONDS>                                        743,897
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,607
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,757,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,493,068
<SALES>                                      2,830,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,784,323
<CGS>                                        1,222,993
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,041,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                652,089
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            658,089
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   658,089
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
p.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

15) IV-E-10 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM Sheet 15 of 117 
P.2 

47o-^r 

Note to: Docket # A-90-37 JrL "~ ^ 

Date: April 15,1997 

Subject: Teleconference with Peter Wycoff on PSD applicability for Ozone Depleting 

Substances (ODS) and HFC 134A 

Attendees: Lea Anderson - OGC (via teleconference) 

Dan deRoeck - OAQPS 

Lynn Hutchinson - OAQPS 

Mark Kataoka - OGC (via teleconference) 

David Solomon - OAQPS 

Jim Weigold - OAQPS 

Peter Wycoff- Attorney representing International Pharmaceutical Association 

Consortium (IPAC) and Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (Alliance) 

(via teleconference) 

Meeting Summary: 

Mr. Wycoff on behalf of IP AC asked that the Agency consider issuing an interim policy 

memo or final interpretative notice to exempt HCFC134a from any PSD review requirements. 

Mr. Wycoff stated that HCFC134a's only known environmental impact is as a contributor to 

Global Warming and that it is inappropriate to regulate it under the PSD program. 

In addition, Mr. Wycoff on behalf of both IP AC and Alliance requested that the Agency 

remove all ODS from PSD review. While the Agency's 1994 Pollution Control Projects policy 

memo allows States to exempt pollution control projects from PSD review, Mr. Wycoff 

contended that this involves an unnecessary administrative process at the State level and does not 

completely resolve the problem. Moreover, while the NSR reform amendments address the 

regulation of Title VI substances under the PSD program, Mr. Wycoff urged the Agency to issue 

an interim policy memo or direct final interpretative notice at this time. He believes that his 

client's are currently exposed unnecessarily to public lawsuits. 

Mr. Solomon asked Mr. Wycoff to provide specific examples of what difficulties his 

clients' have incurred despite the 1994 Pollution Control Project policy memo. Mr. Wycoff 

agreed to consult with his clients.
No. 00-991.

#### Forbes et al. *v.*Semerenko et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
[No. 375-3.

Division Three.

February 8, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Thomas J. Sarver, *Appellant.*
House Calendar No. 151

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 416

[Report No. 103–492]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4296)

assault weapons.to make unlawful the transfer or possession of

MAY 4, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 151

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 416

[Report No. 103–492]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4296) to make unlawful the

transfer or possession of assault weapons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 4, 1994

Mr. DERRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4296) to make

unlawful the transfer or possession of assault weapons.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 4296) to make unlawful the transfer

6 or possession of assault weapons. The first reading of the

7 bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

8 consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall
2

HRES 416 RH

1 be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours

2 equally divided and controlled by the chairman and rank3 ing minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

4 After general debate the bill shall be considered for

5 amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment

6 in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Commit7 tee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be consid8 ered as read. All points of order against the committee

9 amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No

10 amendment to the committee amendment in the nature

11 of a substitute and no other amendment to the bill shall

12 be in order. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

13 for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the

14 bill to the House with such amendment as may have been

15 adopted. The previous question shall be considered as or16 dered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final pas17 sage without intervening motion except one motion to re18 commit with or without instructions.