alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7034

DWIGHT DAVID LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM CLOUD HICKLIN, IV, Attorney; UNKNOWN COURT REPORTER, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-429-7) Submitted: September 26, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight David Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order did not address Lewis’ claim against the “Unknown Court Reporter,” the district court’sreasoning is equally applicable to the court reporter. Consequently, there is no basis for further adjudication of this matter unless Lewis can demonstrate the invalidity of his conviction. See Insinga v. LaBella , 817 F.2d 1469, 1470 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis , 435 U.S. 381, 386-87 (1978) (finding appellate jurisdiction “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensivedetermination” of the action, provided no detriment to the parties). We therefore find that despite the district court’s oversight, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. 2 PER CURIAM: Dwight David Lewis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lewis v. Hicklin, No. CA-00-429-7 (W.D. Va. July 17, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137103 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 137103 

 COA: 284413 

Wayne CC: 04-001269

TORIAL BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 22, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

1215 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 30, 2008 

 Clerk
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1594 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street 

in Sherman, Texas, as the Paul Brown United States Courthouse. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2013 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 

East Pecan Street in Sherman, Texas, as the Paul 

Brown United States Courthouse. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse located at 101 East 

5 Pecan Street in Sherman, Texas, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Paul Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1594 IS

1 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

2 to be a reference to the ‘‘Paul Brown United States Court3 house’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Julian CAPLAN, Appellant, v. James T. RUSSELL, State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-866.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,990,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       7,034,300
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,924,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,555,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          553,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,555,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,158,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,210,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (81,900)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                42,800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,015,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,015,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,015,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    33.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       7,229,012
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,313,372
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,064,241)
<INVENTORY>                                 15,405,185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,706,288
<PP&E>                                       3,759,924
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,971,598)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,695,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,333,823
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    30,055,034
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,695,544
<SALES>                                     43,878,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,878,445
<CGS>                                       25,820,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,820,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,564,414
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               353,768
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (94,664)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,502,994
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,195,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,307,994
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,307,994
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert Wesley AKSELL, Appellant, v. Lois Marie AKSELL, Appellee.

No. 73-1052.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 27, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Bernad Muszynski, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
SERVED: NOVEJ\.ffiER 30, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

,--.. . \) 

wASHINGTON, DC I~ - 3 '::J : 0 l 

IN THE MATTER OF 

~HEMSYSTEMS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0911 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011WP700181 ) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and 

other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA 

Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List . 

................... 

( 

' 

... · 

Attachment- Service List 
SERVED: NOVEMBER 30 2012 ' 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Nancy Meikle, President 

ChemSystems, Inc., Respondent 

10 101 Genard Road 

Houston, TX 77041 

Robert Fling, Respondent 's Counsel 

S. Robert Fling, PLLC. 

P.O. Box 411 , Katy, TX 77492 

5518 Fifth Street, Suite C 

Katy, TX 77493 

TEL: 281-391-2003 

F}G(: 281-727-0082 

ONE COPY 

Courtney Adolph, Complainant 's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7128 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0911 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

- 3-
Exhibit 99.1

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

     I, Robert K. Weiler, as Chief Executive Officer of Giga Information Group,
Inc. ("Giga") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30,
2002 as filed with the U.S. 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, as amended; and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Giga.

Dated:  October 31, 2002

                                                 ROBERT K. WEILER
                                                 ----------------
                                                 Robert K. Weiler,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer of Giga
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header History
 You are here: Census.gov ›
  History ›
  FAQs › Agency History FAQs Skip top of page navigation
 History Main
      Agency History
        Director Biographies
          Census Facilities
          Suitland, MD
          Notable Alumni
      Innovations
        Data Collection
          Technology
      Programs
        Agriculture
          Demographic
          Housing
          Economic
          Geography
          Governments
      Through the Decades
        Fast Facts
          Overview
          Index of Questions
          Questionnaires
          Census Instructions
      Genealogy
        Decennial Census Records
          Other Resources
      Reference
        Data@Museums
          Artifacts
          Lesson Plans
          Legislation
          Maps
          Oral Histories
          Privacy & Confidentiality
          Apportionment
          Publications
 Home Page Archive
        2024
          2023
          2022
          2021
          2020
          2019
          2018
          2017
          2016
          2015
          2014    
      FAQs
        Genealogy
          Agency History
          Demographic
          Economic
          Governments
          Agriculture
          Geography
          Innovations
          Miscellaneous
  In this Section: How many census takers are needed to conduct the census?
  When did the U.S. Census Bureau move to Suitland, MD, and why?
  Has anyone famous ever worked at the U.S. Census Bureau?
  Has the census always been conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau?
  When did the U.S. Census Bureau become a permanent agency?
  Who was in charge during each census?
 Agency History FAQs The U.S. Census Bureau was established as a permanent agency within the Department of the Interior in 1902.  Prior to that, the work was performed by a temporary office overseen by other agencies, including the Department of State and Department of Interior.  The first censuses were conducted by U.S. Marshals and their assistants, and replaced by specially-appointed and trained census takers in 1880. The questions to the left are some of the most frequently asked about the Census Bureau's history and the people who have worked here. census employeesCensus Bureau employees use electronic duplicating key punches tocopy census data onto multiple punch cards to tabulate data for thousands of tables following the 1940 census
 CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer
pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Frederic T. Boyer, Chief Financial Officer of
Qualstar Corporation (the Company), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
    the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 (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 780(d)); 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/ FREDERIC T. BOYER  
| |                        
| | Frederic T. Boyer,     
| | Chief Financial Officer

Date: September 26, 2003
#### Mary SCHMIDT, Appellant, v. SOMMERS AND MESSMER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-87.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Cutter & Buck Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the second quarter of fiscal year 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on December 8, 2006 (“the Report”), I, Ernest R.Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ ERNEST R.  JOHNSON          |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | Ernest R. Johnson               |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer*       |
|   | *(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
#### Korlis C. DURRANCE, Appellant, v. Rodney Millard DURRANCE, Appellee.

No. 70-681.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 9, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : NO. 541

:

ORDER AMENDING PENNSYLVANIA : CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :

131 : 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14

th day of November, 2022, the proposal having been submitted 

without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. 103(a):

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that Rule 131 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended in the 

attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be 

effective in 30 days.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1605 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1605

                  For the relief of Michael G. Faber.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2013

 Ms. Murkowski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Michael G. Faber.

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

SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT TO SEALASKA CORPORATION.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Affected individual.--The term ``affected individual'' 
        means Michael G. Faber, who--
                    (A) is a former resident of the State of Alaska; 
                and
                    (B) was previously enrolled in Sealaska Corporation 
                under roll number 13-752-39665-01.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
    (b) Revocation of Membership in Metlakatla Indian Community.--
Effective on the date on which the affected individual submits written 
notice to the Metlakatla Indian Community revoking the membership of 
the affected individual in the Metlakatla Indian Community, the 
membership of the affected individual in the Metlakatla Indian 
Community shall be considered to be revoked.
    (c) Reinstatement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
pursuant to section 5 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
U.S.C. 1604), the Secretary shall, immediately after the affected 
individual submits the notice under subsection (b)--
            (1) reinstate the affected individual to the shareholder 
        roll of Sealaska Corporation; and
            (2) ensure the provision to the affected individual of the 
        number of shares originally allocated to the affected 
        individual by Sealaska Corporation.
    (d) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section provides to the 
affected individual any retroactive benefit relating to membership in--
            (1) Sealaska Corporation; or
            (2) the Metlakatla Indian Community.
                                 <all>
```
### Page 1 of 3 Disposition Comments

Docket No: 

### FAA-2011-0445 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 2011-NE-14-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### SP3192EN-E

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM



### No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.

No 

### Has the referenced service information been re vised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same i ssue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following:

If other, explain:

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or ho w is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the fo llowing changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO , we don’t agree because

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following:

If other, explain:

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or ho w is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the fo llowing changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3 If NO , we don’t agree because

For additional issues, double-click here

### Page 3 of 3 S ignature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### SP3192EN-E

ASE Printed Name : 

### Alan Strom 8/24/11 Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit 4.2



 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated October 14, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2131 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-267308) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


October 14, 2022