alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1063
KENDALL H. BREEDLOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SKY BRYCE ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED; L. E.HOOLE; DENISE F. BARB; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JOHN #1 DOE, and other defendants unknown at present, Defendants - Appellees.
No. 98-1064
KENDALL H. BREEDLOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES J. MIHALIK, In his capacity as President of the Sky Bryce Association, Incorporated, and in his individual capacity; SKY BRYCE ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-41-H, CA-95-55-H) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 21, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kendall H. Breedlove, Appellant Pro Se. James Van Ingold, CHADWICK, WASHINGTON, OLTERS, MORIARTY & LYNN, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia; Mark Dudley Obenshain, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, Harrisonburg, Virginia; Richard Cullen, Gregory E. Lucyk, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint and motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the records and thedistrict court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Breedlove v. Sky Bryce Assoc., Inc. , No. CA-97-41-H (W.D. Va. Nov. 13 & Dec. 12, 1997); Breedlove v. Mihalik , No. CA-95-55-H (W.D. Va. July 1,1996; Dec. 12, 1997). We deny Appellant’s “motion for certification” and “Sworn Motion for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to Cause the Correction and the Certification of Each of the False, Tampered, Incomplete, Uncertified Records on Appeal from the Federal District Court, in each of the Two Instant Appeals.” 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
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the quarterly report of AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stanley J. Gadek, Senior Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1)            | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 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.
|               |                                                                                                                                                     
|August 6, 2004 | By:                                                                                                                                                 
|               |                                                                                                                                                     
|               |                                                                                                                                                     
|               |
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was 
                    ( print page 38694)
                    charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law. Notice of Termination of Receiverships
Fund
Receivership name
City
State
Termination date10035
Alliance Bank
Culver City
CA
8/1/201810225
BC National Banks
Butler
MO
8/1/201810285
Sonoma Valley Bank
Sonoma
CA
8/1/201810460
Excel Bank
Sedalia
MO
8/1/201810482
1st Commerce Bank
North Las Vegas
NV
8/1/2018
 The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination dates listed above, the Receiverships have been terminated, the Receiver has been discharged, and the Receiverships have ceased to exist as legal entities. Dated at Washington, DC, on August 2, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2018-16832 Filed 8-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
#### Billy James BARTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-38.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 20, 1967.

Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Public Defender, and Richard C. Edwards, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty, Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 834, 835; Hines v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 605, 606; Childs v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 605, 606.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
.

216 | a
SCHEDULE .—Free Inhabitants in <<

of Enna enumerated by me, on the __/4.4 fof gh 1860, _*7Z 0 Ase't Marshal
Post Office Geetretn |

|

——$_—___—_ — — — ae ——_ — eee eee Tr Oe eee eee —— ———

[4 ‘| es Descrir7ox. Varvce or Estate Owxen. 2 :

3 | 8s S| £4| Whether deaf
5-25 Ey The name of every person whose usval Profession, Occupaticn, or Trade of | - Place of Birth, a. hi . ey iss iad am
SEs | -. 8 | Place of abode on the firm day of June, each person, male and female, over | Value of | Value of | Naming the Stas, Territory, | FH/% 8) Fe | saictic ‘
os. £55 1860, was in this family. 15 years of age. Real Estate. Personal or Country. 3c : % tae tol
ees | ees Estate. Es convict.

BEE aa 3) 52
10 13128 14

B
—_—DDAWRDD__|_——_————_——==
| fee! Bere

c

bl Cas y

it

14

17

BCCSSECHEEESSET CREE EE
| tt | | tt |
Yh
ce @®

Historic census records are maintained and released by = 2
the National Archives and Records Administration, = *

not the U.S. Census Bureau.

IZ Visit http:/www.archives.gov for more information about publicly —|— =r
ae available records like the one shown here. pe eet ”
33

hitzew- BW 7 WZ 7 a |

——_ — —— — —————  — — —— + ee

No. white males, / No. colored males,

No. white ‘iain KO No. colored females,

—___—— _- - — — eee ee

!

No. foreign born, -0 No. idiotic,

No. convicts, __._—_

0
No. deafand dumb,______ No. insane, ier v\ . | No. paupers,
#### BASIC FOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Appellant, v. Milton J. WALLACE and Wallace & Kreutzer, Appellees.

No. 73-1287.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 28, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Tom SPENCE and Bert Chiles, d/b/a Village Motors, Appellants, v. Auetrey CLAYTON, a/k/a Audrey Clayton, Appellee.

No. 73-166.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 13, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Hubert A. CREIGHTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-80.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 8, 1971.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Carl Van Martin Coffin, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*750PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Moore v. Edwards, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 241 So.2d 736, opinion filed December 11, 1970. See also Chapter 59-877, Section 3, Laws of Florida 1959.

WALDEN, REED, and OWEN, JJ., concur.
#### James H. SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1163.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1971.

*626James H. Smith, in pro. per.

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

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, 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, 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 on appeal that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Crum v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 24; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 913; Bruton v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 220 So.2d 669. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment is hereby affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                       6,022,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               42,401,140
<ALLOWANCES>                               (2,539,284)
<INVENTORY>                                 45,421,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           100,908,227
<PP&E>                                      21,748,717
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,477,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             123,406,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,462,134
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    63,499,445
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,914,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               123,406,844
<SALES>                                     85,102,784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            85,102,784
<CGS>                                       47,039,659
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,039,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            30,832,849
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (176,577)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,053,699
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,681,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,372,699
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,372,699
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42


</TABLE>
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 

ZAI LAB LIMITED 
  

			
	 Number
	  	Ordinary Shares
	 [ ]
	  	- [ ] -

 Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands 

Share capital is US$30,000 divided into 5,000,000,000 Shares of US$0.000006 par value each 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [ ] is the registered holder of [ ] Ordinary Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Sixth Amended and Restated
Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof. 
 EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the [ ] day of [ ] 2022 by:
Notification of the Interim Final FIP – Signed by Lisa Jackson Notification of the Interim Final FIP – Signed by Lisa Jackson , , EPA Administrator 40 CFR Part CFR Part CFR Part

49 – Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities Production Facilities ,

, Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation ( Mandan , Hidatsa and

Hidatsa and Hidatsa and Arikara Nations Arikara Nations ,

, or MHA Nation or MHA Nation or MHA Nation )

, North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota . (

as defined in § as defined in § as defined in § 49.152 Carl Daly Carl Daly to: jcatlin 08/02/2012 11:17 AM Cc: cosborn, rfinch, Deirdre Rothery, Kate Fay, Sara Laumann This message is digitally signed. Mr. Catlin, This email is to inform you that Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, has signed an interim final rule “Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities Production Facilities ,

, Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation ( Mandan , Hidatsa and Arikara Nations

Hidatsa and Arikara Nations Hidatsa and Arikara Nations , or MHA Nation Nation) ) , North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota ,

” (Fort Berthold Oil and Gas FIP) a federal rule that applies to oil and gas operations producing from the Bakken Pool on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota . The FIP requires owners and operators of oil and natural gas production facilities to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds emanating from well completions , recompletions, and production and storage operations. The agency proposed a Reservation-specific FIP concurrently with this interim final rule . Please find, attached, a copy of the notification sent by certified mail to the primary contact for Kodiak Oil and Gas Corp:

Kodiak_Actual Notice of FIP Letter 8-1-12.pdf And a copy of the interim final rule:

Fort Berthold FIP NFR_8-1-12 (interim final rule) f or ACTUAL NOTICE LETTERS.pdf If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me or Deirdre Rothery, Chief Air Permitting, Monitoring and Modeling Unit at rothery.deirdre@epa.gov or 303-312-6431. Thank you, Carl Daly, Director, Air Program 303-312-6416
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-702

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 11/29/2012

Sample Number: 124806-001 Date Collected: 11/07/2012 08:45 Date Received: 11/7/2012

Trip Blank 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg < 0.5 ng/L 0.5 0.2 TLT 11/21/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 124806-002 Date Collected: 11/07/2012 08:45 Date Received: 11/7/2012

Field Blank 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg < 0.5 ng/L 0.5 0.2 TLT 11/21/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 124806-003 Date Collected: 11/07/2012 08:45 Date Received: 11/7/2012

Plant Outfall #001 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 3.4 ng/L 2 0.8 TLT 11/21/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 124806-004 Date Collected: 11/07/2012 08:30 Date Received: 11/7/2012

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 41.4 ng/L 10 4 TLT 11/21/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 124806-005 Date Collected: 11/07/2012 08:35 Date Received: 11/7/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 2.0 ng/L 1 0.4 TLT 11/21/2012 EPA 1631E

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 124806 Page 1 of 1
No. 11178.

#### The Chris Diehl Brewing Co. *v.*Beck, Auditor, et al.

Decided November 9, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Henry county.

*Mr. B. F. Enos,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. T. A. Conway,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Spear, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
AFS-12-367-E June 14, 2012

Exemption No. 9814B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-1352

Mr. Nicholas R. Herman II Training Director Toledo City School District d.b.a. Aerospace Center Toledo Express Airport 11791 West Airport Service Road Swanton, OH 43558

Dear Mr. Herman:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9814, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 11, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Toledo City School District d.b.a. Aero space Center (Aerospace) for an extension of Exemption No. 9814, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Aerospace students to take the knowledge exam upon completion of the requirements of the general curriculum.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aerospace.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9814, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 9814, as amended, to January 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9814, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9814.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service
#### Harry HOROWITZ, on behalf of Meridian 17 Corp., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. UNITED INVESTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, United Meridian Corp., a Florida corporation, and Meridian Parking Corp., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 68-400.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 2, 1968.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 1968.

Ronald S. Golub, Miami, for appellant.

Sager, Silverman & Bodne, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Connor v. Elliott, 59 Fla. 227, 52 So. 729 (1910), and Landis v. North American Company, 299 U.S. 248, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936).
#### Fred ROEHNER, Soll Roehner, Melvin T. Goldberger, Dean Moses and Earl Worsham d/b/a Regency Highland Associates, Appellants, v. ATLANTIC COAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 77-717.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 28, 1978.

*1297Dana C. Ferrell of Byrd & Ferrell, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, and Baskin, Schwartz, Brown &' Libenson, Boca Raton, for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

LETTS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint to enforce an equitable lien, said complaint filed in excess of one year after the last furnishing of labor, services or material.

We reverse upon the authority of § 95.-ll(5)(b) (Fla.Stat.1975) which unequivocally requires such a suit to be filed within one year after the last furnishing of labor, services or material for the improvement of real property.

We are aware that a defense based on the statute of limitations is normally a matter of affirmative defense, but here it is inescapably clear from the face of the complaint that the suit was filed beyond the statutory period. *Poulos v. Vordermeier,*327 So.2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

REVERSED with direction to dismiss the action with prejudice.

DOWNEY and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
16.1


 





 


October
21, 2022


 


Securities
and Exchange Commission


100
F Street NE


Washington,
D.C. 20549


 


Dear
Commissioners:


 


We
have read the statements made by Agape ATP Corporation under Item 4.01 of its Form 8-K dated October 21, 2022. We agree with the
statements concerning our firm in such Form 8-K; we are not in a position to agree or disagree with other statements contained Item 4.01
insofar as they do not relate to our firm.


 


	Very
  truly yours,	
	 	 
	/s/
  Friedman LLP	 
	New
  York, New York
No. 11144.

#### The Cincinnati & Columbus Traction Co. *v.*Herman.

Decided December 21, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Clermont county.

*Mr. C. B. Matthews*and *Mr. Eli H. Speidel,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. D. W. Murphy*and *Messrs. Nichols & Nichols,*for defendant in error.

Judg*537ment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.