alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4312



# 
I SAAC I RWIN D AVIS , a/k/a E,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-99-243) Submitted: February 20, 2001 Decided: March 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL D. Gregory Carr, Amy L. Curtis, BOWEN, BRYANT, CHAMPLIN & CARR, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, UnitedStates Attorney, Laura A. Colombell, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM:Isaac Irwin Davis was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine powder and cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), for which he was sentenced to 151 monthsimprisonment. Davis appeals, claiming that the government’s evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the district court clearly erred in determining the quantity of drugs attributable to him at sentencing.We find that sufficient evidence existed to support Davis’ conviction for conspiracy. To prove a drug conspiracy, the government must establish: (1) an agreement to distribute existed between two or morepersons; (2) the defendant knew of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily became part of the conspiracy. United States v. Burgos , 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). With respect to the last element, the government need not prove that thedefendant knew the particulars of the conspiracy or all of his coconspirators. Id. at 858. The evidence need only establish a slight connection between the defendant and the conspiracy to support the conviction. United States v. Seni , 662 F.2d 277, 285 n.7 (4th Cir. 1981). Finally, the testimony of a defendant’s accomplices, standing alone and uncorroborated, can provide an adequate basis for conviction. United States v. Burns , 990 F.2d 1426, 1439 (4th Cir. 1993). Several of Davis’ co-conspirators testified at trial and connected him to the conspiracy. Davis’ challenges to the credibility of these witnesses are not subject to review by this court. United States v. Saunders , 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). We also find that the district court’s factual finding concerning the amount of drugs attributable to Davis was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Randall , 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating standard). Based on evidence adduced at trial, the Government proved the quantity (nine kilograms) by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Gilliam , 987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th Cir. 1993) (stating standard).Accordingly, we affirm Davis’ conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 U NITED S TATES v. D AVISadequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. D AVIS
Opinion issued July 1, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00797-CV

———————————

CARI MOORE, Appellant

V.

DEREK N. T. MOORE, SR., Appellee

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2018-22425

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Cari Moore, has neither paid the required fees nor established 

indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX.

GOV’T CODE §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041; Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in 

Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District 
2

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Further, appellant has 

not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See

TEX.R. APP. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, 

appellant did not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and 

for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Countiss.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of First Community Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Elizabeth O. Lollar, the principal 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, to the best of my knowledge:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

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

Date: March 31, 2003

 /s/ Elizabeth O. Lollar
-----------------------------
Elizabeth O. Lollar
Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer of First Community Bank
(Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant)



                                       61
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4016 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4016

        To suspend temporarily the duty on octadecyl isocyanate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 1994

  Mr. Crane introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on octadecyl isocyanate.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That subchapter II of 
chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 
U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new subheading:

     

       ``  9902.29.89  Octadecyl Isocyanate (provided for in subheading                            No change        No change        On or before 12/   
                        2929.10.40).............................................  Free                                                31/98           ''

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Application.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law to 
the contrary, upon a request filed with the appropriate customs officer 
before the 90th day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any 
entry or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption--
            (1) which was made after December 31, 1992, and before the 
        15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) with respect to which there would have been no duty if 
        the amendment made by section 1 applied to such entry or 
        withdrawal;
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amendment applied to 
such entry or withdrawal.

                                 <all>
```
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 20 10

- NM

- 224

- AD

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# C_2015174EN.01000801.xml

| 28.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/8

---

Notification of the Spanish Government pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (‘Gas Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas regarding the designation of Regasificadora del Noroeste SA (Reganosa) as transmission system operator in Spain — Gas TSO

(2015/C 174/04)

Following the Spanish regulatory authority’s final decision of 12 February 2015 regarding the certification of Regasificadora del Noroeste SA (Reganosa) as Ownership Unbundled Transmission System Operator (Article 9 of the Gas Directive), Spain has notified to the Commission the official approval and designation of this company as a Transmission System Operator operating in Spain in accordance with Article 10 of the Gas Directive.

Any additional information can be obtained at the following address:

| Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism |
| --- |
| International Relations and Cooperation |
| Under-Secretariat for Industry, Energy and Tourism |
| Paseo de la Castellana, 160 |
| 28046 Madrid |
| ESPAÑA |
| Tel. +34 913494180 |
| http://www.minetur.gob.es/ |

Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism

International Relations and Cooperation

Under-Secretariat for Industry, Energy and Tourism

Paseo de la Castellana, 160

28046 Madrid

ESPAÑA

Tel. +34 913494180

http://www.minetur.gob.es/

---
**Exhibit
      23.1**







**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**






We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8 (Nos. 333-48364, 333-38420, 333-31696, 333-93117, 333-92327, 333-11294,
      333-88421, 333-39553, 333-106742, 333-118776, 333-121123, 333-123738 and
      333-126229) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-115059,
      333-120456, 333-123567, 333-124822, 333-126347, 333-126931, 333-133403 and
      333-137165) of our report dated March 14, 2007 relating to our audits of the
      consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Applied
      Digital Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries and our report dated March 14, 2007,
      relating to management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
      over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
      financial reporting of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. as of December 31, 2006,
      which are included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
      December 31, 2006. We also consent to the reference to us as Experts in the
      Registration Statements on Form S-3.




Eisner
      LLP





April
      6,
      2007




New
      York,
      New York
#### Elizabeth Jason et al., Appellants, v Lawrence Chusid et al., Individually and as Executors of Anne Chusid, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, *173New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered May 11, 1990 which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive and declaratory relief, and granted defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and to impose sanctions and costs pursuant to section 130-1.1 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator (22 NYCRR) unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from the sale or disposition of apartment 7-B and penthouses A, B & C located at 410 Central Park West in the City and County of New York pending a judicial determination of the true owner of the shares and proprietary leases allocated to the subject premises. The court granted defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In a decision previously affirmed on appeal to this court *(Chusid v Wright,*138 AD2d 291, *appeals dismissed*72 NY2d 948), the Estate’s ownership of the subject premises, and therefore its right to commence summary proceedings to enforce a possessory judgment against plaintiffs, was necessarily determined. Plaintiffs were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in that forum and are collaterally estopped to raise it anew.

We note that this purportedly summary proceeding has extended over a five-year period, including applications for injunctive relief before the Federal courts. Therefore, we find that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel pursuant to section 130-1.1 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         374,190
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,004,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                   323,474
<INVENTORY>                                  1,507,937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,610,053
<PP&E>                                       7,754,877
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,146,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,174,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,415,813
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,857
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,280,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,174,390
<SALES>                                     14,432,749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,742,308
<CGS>                                       11,185,901
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,156,263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             543,770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,275
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,275
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,275
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42673-42674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18259]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Center for Substance Abuse Treatment: Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council 
will meet on September 7, 2018, in a closed virtual meeting.

[[Page 42674]]

    The virtual meeting will include electronic discourse and 
evaluation of grant applications reviewed by SAMHSA's Initial Review 
Groups, and involve an examination of confidential financial and 
business information as well as personal information concerning the 
applicants. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public as 
determined by the SAMHSA Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and 
Substance Use in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C 552b(c)(4) and (6) and 
Title 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d).
    Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained 
by accessing the SAMHSA Committee website at http://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/csat-national-advisory-council or by 
contacting the CSAT National Advisory Council Designated Federal 
Officer; Tracy Goss (see contact information below).

    Council Name: SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 
National Advisory Council.
    Date/Time/Type: September 7, 2018/CLOSED.
    Place: SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
    Contact: Tracy Goss, Designated Federal Officer, CSAT National 
Advisory Council, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 
(mail), Telephone: (240) 276-0759, Fax: (240) 276-2252, Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3d7d1c2c0da8dc4ccd0d0e3d0c2cecbd0c28dcbcbd08dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="deaaacbfbda7f0b9b1adad9eadbfb3b6adbff0b6b6adf0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>.


Summer King,
Statistician, SAMHSA.
[FR Doc. 2018-18259 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #15663; California Disaster Number CA-00293 Declaration of Economic Injury]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of California, dated 08/24/2018. *Incident:*
                         Cranston Fire. *Incident Period:*
                         07/25/2018 through 08/15/2018.
 DATES: Issued on 08/24/2018. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/24/2019.
 ADDRESS: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Riverside *Contiguous Counties:* *California:*
                     Imperial, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego. *Arizona:*
                     La Paz. The Interest Rates are: PercentBusinesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.610Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500
 The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 156630. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California, Arizona. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Dated: August 24, 2018. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2018-19112 Filed 8-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1327

CAMILLE T. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHARMACEUTICAL

SCIENTISTS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-1765-A)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Camille T. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Rebecca Podolsky,

JENNER & BLOCK, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Camille Taylor appeals the district court’s order granting the

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in her employment discrimination suit. 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. Taylor v. American Association of

Pharmaceutical Scientists, No. CA-97-1765-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 27,

1998). 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
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Freiburg by order of that court of 14 January 2005 in the case of Bernd Voigt v Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe–Bretten

(Case C-83/05)

(2005/C 82/51)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Freiburg (Freiburg Regional Court) (Germany) of 14 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 18 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Bernd Voigt and Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe–Bretten on the following questions:

----

(1)  Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 96).

(2)  Council Directive 92/53/EEC of 18 June 1992 amending Directive 70/156/EEC (OJ 1992 L 225, p. 1).

----