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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7234

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALLEN EARL SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-02-15; CA-04-155-H)

Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 25, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen Earl Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*We recently concluded that the rule announced in United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is not retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review. United States v. Morris,

429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Allen Earl Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 both that the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. Miller-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 Smith has not made the

requisite showing.* Accordingly, 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
#### Harris Joseph GUIDRY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-401.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Michael S. Gross, Chief Executive Officer of
Solar Senior Capital Ltd., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Solar Senior Capital Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

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

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

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

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

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

Dated this 1stday of November, 2012



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/S/    MICHAEL S.
GROSS
|Michael S. Gross
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 632 

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to repeal a 

duplicative program relating to inspection and grading of catfish. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2013 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. COBURN, Mr. NELSON, Ms. 

AYOTTE, Mr. KIRK, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. WARNER, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. 

CRAPO, and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

to repeal a duplicative program relating to inspection 

and grading of catfish. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DUPLICATIVE PROGRAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective on the date of enact5 ment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

6 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), section 11016 of that Act (Public 

7 Law 110–246; 122 Stat. 2130) and the amendments made 

8 by that section are repealed. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 632 IS

1 (b) APPLICATION.—The Agricultural Marketing Act 

2 of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) and the Federal Meat 

3 Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) shall be applied 

4 and administered as if section 11016 of the Food, Con5 servation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–246; 

6 122 Stat. 2130) and the amendments made by that sec7 tion had not been enacted. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1757

WILLIE FRANK JAMES, JR.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS LLC,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

DAN FAKETTY; JENNIFER POWERS,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:18

- cv

- 01031

- RMG

- MHC )

Submitted : November 23, 2021 Decided: November 29, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Willie Frank James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David S. Shankman

, SHANKMAN LEONE PA , Tampa, Florida, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Willie Frank James, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and

denying in part Southeastern Grocers LLC’s motion for summary judgment. This court

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain int erlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order James seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. A ccordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. CP17-178-000]

On April 17, 2017, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation filed an application in Docket No. CP17-178-000, pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations, for authorization to site, construct, and operate a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and associated facilities on the eastern shore of Cook Inlet in the Nikiski area of the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska, and to construct approximately 871 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated facilities, all within the State of Alaska. The proposed project, known as the Alaska LNG (Project), would liquefy and export up to 20.0 million metric tons per annum of LNG.

In accordance with Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, enacted on December 4, 2015, agencies are to publish completion dates for all federal environmental reviews and authorizations. This notice identifies the Commission's anticipated schedule for issuance of the final order for the Project, which is based on the anticipated date of issuance of the final Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, we currently anticipate issuing a final order in the Project no later than:

Issuance of Final Order—February 6, 2020

If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final order, an additional notice will be provided so that interested parties and government agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

Dated: August 31, 2018.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-19396 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 8


                              List of Subsidiaries

      Unless specified below, all subsidiaries listed herein are organized under
the laws of the United Mexican States.

Elektrafin Comercial, S.A. de C.V.
Salinas y Rocha, S.A. de C.V.
Elektra Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Comercios Elektra, S.A. de C.V.
Entrega Especializada, S.A. de C.V.
Almacenes Especializados, S.A. de C.V.
Direccion Especial, S.A. de C.V.
Electronica del Moral, S.A. de C.V.
Inmuebles Selectos, S.A. de C.V.
Mi Garantia Extendida, S.A. de C.V.
Importaciones Electronicas Ribesa, S.A. de C.V.
Inmuebles Ardoma, S.A. de C.V.
Compania Operadora de Teatros, S.A. de C.V.
Siglo XXI, S.A. de C.V.
Direccion de Administracion Central, S.A. de C.V.
Grupo Proasa, S.A. de C.V.
Grupo Mercantil Finemsa, S.A. de C.V.
Elmex Superior, S.A. de C.V.
Mercadotecnia Tezontle, S.A. de C.V.
Aerotraxis Metropolitanos, S.A. de C.V.
Sistemas de Mision Estrategica, S.A. de C.V.
Administrativos Empresariales, S.A. de C.V.
Inmobiliaria Hecali, S.A. de C.V.
THE ONE, S.A. de C.V.
The One Internet, S.A. de C.V.
Operadora SYR, S.A. de C.V.
Colchones, S.A.
Intra Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Elektra Transfer, S.A. de C.V.
Mercantil Agricola, S.A. de C.V. (Guatemala)
Datacion y Supervision de Personal, S.A. de C.V. (Guatemala)
Importadora y Exportadora Elektra de El Salvador, S.A. de C.V. (El Salvador)
Comercializadora Elektra, S.A. de C.V. (Honduras)
Elektra del Peru, S.A.  (Peru)
Inmuebles Elektra, S.A. de C.V.
Elektra Centroamerica, S.A. de C.V.
Inmobiliaria Liur, S.A. de C.V.
Colchones Coloso, S.A. de C.V.
Direccion Sistematica Empresarial, S.A. de C.V.
Operadoras en Servicios Comerciales, S.A. de C.V.
Control y Direccion Administrativa, S.A. de C.V.
Direccion de Administracion en Proyectos Aplicados, S.A. de C.V.
Direccion de Administracion en Proyectos Especiales, S.A. de C.V.
Mediciones y Representaciones Comerciales, S.A. de C.V.
Gerencia Administrativas Operacionales, S.A. de C.V.
Bienes Raices en Promocion del Centro, S.A. de C.V.
Banco Azteca, S.A.
Afore Azteca S.A. de C.V.
Siefore Azteca S.A. de C.V.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

May 10, 2018

 

Via EDGAR

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

Judiciary Plaza

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Re: Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VOC Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

 

(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 Trust.

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 
|     | The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,   N.A. |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------|
|     | Trustee for VOC Energy Trust                      |
|     |                                              |   |
|     | By:                                               | /s/ MICHAEL J. ULRICH |
|     |                                              | Michael J. Ulrich |
| * * | * *                                          | *Vice President and Trust   Officer* |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-28-2018]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 37--Orange County, New York; 
Authorization of Production Activity; Takasago International Corp. 
(U.S.A.), (Fragrances), Harriman, New York

    On April 30, 2018, Takasago International Corp. (U.S.A.) submitted 
a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within FTZ 37--Site 10, in Harriman, New York.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (83 FR 20033, May 7, 2018). On August 
28, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that 
no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14.

    Dated: August 28, 2018.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19209 Filed 9-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Sistrunk, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), rendered May 16, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution’s witness to testify that he observed the defendant commit what he considered to be criminal offenses, reversal of the judgment of conviction is not warranted on that basis, as the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and the testimony as to uncharged crimes was not so pervasive as to have created a significant probability that it directed the jury’s attention from the actual charges to be proven *(cf., People v McArthur,*170 AD2d 540; *People v Harris,*150 AD2d 723, 726).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Balletta, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

RE:    Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to its knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

 
|   | /s/   Michael J. Ulrich                                                                            |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael   J. Ulrich                                                                                |
|   | Vice   President                                                                                   |
|   | The   Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee of SandRidge   Mississippian Trust I |

 

May 9, 2014

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7700
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWAYNE IVAN MCDONALD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-93-125-B, CA-97-1176-HNM) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Ivan McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen O'Connell Gavin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Bal timore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying in part his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. McDonald , Nos. CR-93-125-B, CA-97-1176-HNM (D. Md. Oct. 31, 1997). 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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT

Section 1350 Certification as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Strategic Dental Management Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 24, 2012             

By: /s/ Brian E. Ray

                                           

Brian E. Ray

Principal Executive Officer

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT

Section 1350 Certification as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Strategic Dental Management Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 24, 2012             

By: /s/John Lundgreen

                                           

John Lundgreen

Principal Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-3324SI

_____________

Marcia Sharon Neal, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Walgreen Drug Stores, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Walgreen Company, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: May 21, 1997

Filed: May 30, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Marcia Sharon Neal appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary

judgment in Neal's action to recover for injuries sustained in a purse-snatching incident

in front of a Walgreen's store. We review a grant of summary judgment under a wellestablished standard. Because this is a diversity action, we review de novo questions

of state law. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied the

district court correctly applied the controlling law and the record supports the district

court's ruling. Because a comprehensive opinion in this diversity case would lack 
-2-

precedential value, we affirm on the basis of the magistrate judge's ruling without

further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.