alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7727

MARK K. HYLTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versusRONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Corrections; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-98-329-7) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark K. Hylton, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen B. Martin, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).2 PER CURIAM: Mark Keith Hylton seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). With his motion for reconsideration, Hylton presented an affidavit, which he contends constitutes new evidence of his innocence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hylton v. Angelone , No. CA-98-329-7 (W.D. Va. Dec. 17, 1999). 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
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 the Treasury

# DATES:

Comments should be received on or before February 13, 2012 to be assured of consideration.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at                         *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV*                         and (2) Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Suite                               ( print page 1977)                            11020, Washington, DC 20220, or on-line at                         *www.PRAComment.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at                         *PRA@treasury.gov,*                         or the entire information collection request maybe found at                         *www.reginfo.gov.*

## Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund

*OMB Number:*                         1559-0005.                    

*Type of Review:*                         Revision of a currently approved collection.                    

*Title:*                         Bank Enterprise Award Program Application.                    

*Form:*                         CDFI 0002.                    

*Abstract:*                         The BEA Program provides incentives to insured depository institutions to increase their support of CDFIs and their activities in economically distressed communities.                    

*Affected Public:*                         Private Sector: Businesses or other for-profits.                    

*Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:*                         1,125.                    

Dawn D. Wolfgang,

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-466 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-70-P
#### In re Lorenza.

(No. 31231

Decided December 17, 1947.)

*Mr. Maxwell J. Gruber*and *Mr. Dan Duffy,*for appellant petitioner.

*Mr. Lee C. Rowley,*director of law, *Mr. Joseph Stearns,*police prosecutor, and *Mr. August Pryatel,*for appellee respondent.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS*

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc. (the Company) hereby
certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Terry R. McCormack                           
|Terry R. McCormack                               
|President and Chief Executive Officer            
|November 12, 2010                                
|                                                 
|/s/ Thomas H. Madden                             
|Thomas H. Madden                                 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 12, 2010                                



|* | The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.4986
AFS-15-2851-E

July 16, 2016

Ms. Lacey P. Charvet

Vice President

Southern Seaplane, Inc.

#1 Coquille Drive

Belle Chasse, LA 70037

Dear Ms. Charvet:

This letter is in response to your petition dated June 12, 2015 (public docket No. FAA-2015-

2673) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Southern 

Seaplane, Inc. (Southern Seaplane) for an exemption from § 141.55(d)(1) of Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Southern 

Seaplane to request and receive initial approval to amend its Training Course Outline (TCO)

through its local Flight Standards District Officer (FSDO). More specifically, Southern 

Seaplane requests relief to amend its TCO in order to remove the required three hour, 100 

nautical mile night training flight with 10 takeoffs and 10 landing to a full stop. 

The FAA has determined that an exemption is not the correct means to obtain the relief or 

approval you seek. Section 141.55(d) and (e) contains provisions that enable a pilot school to 

request and receive approval for any training course under part 141 that does not meet the 

minimum ground and flight training requirements, provided certain provision and conditions 

are met. Furthermore, Southern Seaplane does not currently possess a part 141 pilot or 

provisional pilot school air agency certificate. The FAA cannot provide an exemption from a 

rule to a petitioner which is not required to comply with or is not currently qualified to 

operate under that rule. Pilot schools are required to meet a certain standard when providing 

flight training and, as such, Southern Seaplane must be qualified under part 141 before the 

FAA can consider an exemption request.

The FAA Flight Standards Service, through your local FSDO, has the authority to review any 

request that is submitted under § 141.55. The final decision to approve or reject such a 

submission remains with the FSDO. 
2

Accordingly, because the relief you seek is already covered under different regulations, we 

will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

cc: SW-03, Baton Rouge FSDO
*

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 22, 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 05-3060

v. (D. Kansas)

SHEA W. VAN KIRK,

Defendant-Appellant.

 (D.C. No. 02-CR-10185-01-MLB)

ORDER*

Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2); 10TH CIR. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Shea Van Kirk, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) in order to challenge the district court’s denial of his

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Because Mr. Van Kirk has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
-2-

constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny his request and dismiss the

appeal.

In January 2004, Mr. Van Kirk pleaded guilty to a single count of being a

“felon in possession of firearms,” charge in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

Mr. Van Kirk did not appeal his conviction.

In October 2004, he filed a motion pursuant to § 2255 seeking to have the

district court correct his sentence pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.

2531 (2004) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He alleges that

his unenhanced sentencing range was 51-63 months, and that the district court

improperly imposed a 120-month sentence, based on findings made by a

preponderance of the evidence. The district court rejected this argument, finding

nothing to suggest Blakely and Apprendi apply to defendants seeking relief under

§ 2255 whose convictions were final when the Supreme Court decided Blakely in

June 2004.

We agree with the district court. We have held that neither Apprendi,

Blakely nor United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), announced a new rule

of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court on collateral review.

See, e.g., United States v. Bellamy, No. 04-5145, 2005 WL 1406176, at *3 (10th

Cir. June 16, 2005) (concluding “Booker does not apply retroactively to initial

habeas petitions”); United States v. Price, 400 F.3d 844, 849 (10th Cir. 2005),
-3-

(holding “Blakely does not apply retroactively to convictions that were already

final at the time the [Supreme] Court decided Blakely, June 24, 2004.”); United

States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10th Cir. 2002) (stating that “Apprendi is

not a watershed decision and hence is not retroactively applicable to initial habeas

petitions”).

 Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Van Kirk’s request for a COA, and DISMISS

the matter.

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10321

Summary Calendar

LOUIS HOWARD CONFER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

B. A. JOHNSON, Officer; P. LYNN BROOKS; MICHELLE HARTMAN,

Assistant District Attorney, Tarrant County, Texas; MARY SCHERER;

SHARONE SUTTON; C. D. BEAN, Detective; BELKER O. PASCHALL, III,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas 

(4:95 CV 00167)

( July 31, 1995 )

Before SMITH, Emilio M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Per curiam:*

Louis Howard Confer (Confer), a Texas state prisoner, filed a

pro se, in forma pauperis claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

district court dismissed. We affirm.
2

DISCUSSION

Confer alleged in his § 1983 complaint that he was arrested on

a burglary charge that was later dropped, but his parole was

nevertheless revoked as a result of that charge. The district

court found that the gravamen of his complaint was a challenge to

the revocation of his parole and his continued imprisonment.

Because Confer's complaint indicated that his state court petitions

for habeas corpus have been denied, the district court found that

his § 1983 claims based upon the revocation of his parole have not

yet accrued. Heck v. Humphrey, ___U.S.___, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372,

129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). These claims were dismissed without

prejudice to refiling.

The district court went on to hold that Michelle Hartman, the

Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted the case; P. Lynn

Brooks, the attorney appointed to represent Confer; and Mary

Scherer and Sharone Sutton, the parole officers that recommended

that Confer's parole be revoked, were entitled to absolute

immunity. All claims against these defendants were dismissed with

prejudice. See McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d

158 (5th Cir. 1995). To the extent that Confer's claims against C.

D. Bean and B. A. Johnson are based upon their providing testimony

at Confer's parole revocation hearing, these claims were also

dismissed with prejudice. Johnson v. Kegans, 870 F.2d 992, 997

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 921 (1989). 

Confer reurges the merits of his various claims on appeal, but
3

raises no challenge to the district court's holding under Heck, and

this Court's immunity jurisprudence. Having examined the record,

we find no error in the district court's order, which we therefore

AFFIRM.
***EXHIBIT 31(ii)***

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Kent Carasquero, certify that:  

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of Mistral Ventures, Inc.;  

 

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the period presented in this Report;   

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;   

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 13, 2007  

 

/s/ Kent Carasquero

Kent Carasquero

Chief Financial Officer 

 

31

 

----
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0209 SAT Date: 1/18/2013 Print Date: 4/1/2013

Related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 2 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: IRR/CORROSION, LUNG, UNCERT-SENS-DERMAL/RESPIRATORY, AQUATOX-A,C
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0200-09 FATE: Estimations for MW 441 Liquid with MP < 25 C (E) log Kow = 5.01 (E) S = Disp. / 1.38 mg /L at 25 C (ICB / E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) log Koc = 5.86 (E)log Fish BCF = 1.85 (E) log Fish BAF = 1.82 (E) POTW removal (%) = 75-90 via sorption and biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = strong PBT Potential: P2B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is poor through the skin, moderate through the GI tract, and good through the lungs based on analogs. There is concern for irritation and p ossible corrosion based on the and concern for lung effects if respirable particles are inhaled based on cationic binding to lung tissues and the surfactant properties of the PMN material. There is also uncertain concern for dermal and respiratory sensitization based on smaller . Moderate concern.

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.4 daphnid 48-h LC50 0.22 green algal 96-h EC50 0.099 fish

_ chronic value 0.031 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.025

algal

_ chronic value 0.041
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for with molecular weight adjustment; SAR chemical class = ; MW 415; liquid; log Kow = 4.68 (EPI); S = dispersible in water at 25 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 3

SARs with molecular weight adjustment SAR Class Ecotox CategoryEcotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: Becky Jones
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Barrett Evans, certify that:



1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report of Probe Manufacturing, Inc.;



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(s)  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(s) 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  14th  day  of  August 2006.





/s/  Barrett Evans

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

Barrett Evans

Interim Chief Financial Officer