alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6293

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR., a/k/a Fat Sammy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-369-B, CA-97-2980-B) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen S. Zimmermann, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court order denying hismotion for discovery. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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 TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with this Quarterly  Report of Utilicraft  Aerospace  Industries,
Inc. (the  "Registrant")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2008
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  John  Dupont,  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the
Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss..1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss..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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: November 19, 2008

By: /s/ John Dupont
    ---------------
 John Dupont,
 President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11348

Summary Calendar

HAYWARD GEORGE SLATER, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-979

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hayward George Slater, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1734721, appeals the 

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for capital 

murder and sentence of life imprisonment. We granted Slater’s motion for a 

certificate of appealability (COA) with respect to “the district court’s 

procedural decision not to consider Slater’s grounds five, six, eight, and nine,” 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 19, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11348 Document: 00515459619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2020
No. 17-11348

2

denied a COA as to all other issues, and remanded to the district court for 

findings of fact. 

We now affirm. In his initial brief, Slater fails to demonstrate that the 

district court clearly erred in finding that the clerk’s office had not mishandled 

his filings, see St. Aubin v. Quarterman, 470 F.3d 1096, 1101 (5th Cir. 2006), 

and he does not otherwise address the procedural issue as to which a COA was 

granted, see Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1983). We do not

consider the arguments raised for the first time in Slater’s reply brief. See

United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 648 n.7 (5th Cir. 2010). His motion for 

appointment of counsel is denied. See Wardlaw v. Cain, 541 F.3d 275, 279 (5th 

Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

 Case: 17-11348 Document: 00515459619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2020
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of Harry & David Holdings, Inc.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 25, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers certifies that:



| | 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 as of and for the
periods presented in the Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 8, 2011



By:

/S/ STEVEN J. HEYERSteven J. HeyerChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/S/ EDWARD F. DUNLAPEdward F. DunlapChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                       1,074,674
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,345
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,107,419
<PP&E>                                       2,293,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                 254,016
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,489,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,821,056
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,986
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,084,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,489,605
<SALES>                                      1,637,569
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,037,569
<CGS>                                          791,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,590,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,392,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             3,387,541
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,240,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,240,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,240,827)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4913



# 
H ASSAAN H AAKIM R ASHAAD ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.

(CR-01-195) Submitted: July 29, 2003 Decided: September 29, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Trevor Michael Fuller, THE FULLER LAW FIRM, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Anne M. Tompkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Hassaan Haakim Rashaad appeals his convictions and sentence of life plus eighty-two years following his trial for numerous counts of narcotics, firearms, and robbery-related charges. Having reviewed his claims that the Government lacked probable cause for a wiretap and that the Government breached its immunity agreement with Rashaad, we affirm.
Rashaad first claims that the Government failed to honor an immunity agreement he reached following his arrest on the original indictment. Where a defendant alleges breach of an agreement by the Government, a reviewing court must determine "if the government has in fact agreed to [limit criminal liability], and, if so, whether the defendant has satisfied his contractual obligations." United States v. Conner , 930 F.2d 1073, 1075 (4th Cir. 1991). Rashaad failed to satisfy his obligations by escaping custody and by failing to be completely truthful in regard to his involvement in a series of uncharged robberies. See United States v. Crowell , 586 F.2d 1020, 1027-28 (4th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, although Rashaad had an agreement with the Government, he was not entitled to enforce it in light of his own breach. We deny this claim. Rashaad next claims that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from a wiretap. A district court may authorize a wiretap where "there is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(a) (2000). Our review of the record supports the district court’s finding of probable cause to support the issuance of the wiretap order. The government’s affidavit in support of its application was exhaustive. The affidavit detailed Rashaad’s involvement with his accomplice, Bobby Johnson, Johnson’s involvement in a series of local robberies, and Rashaad’s surveillance of two banks with Johnson. Accordingly, we deny this claim. We affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre2 U NITED S TATES v. R ASHAADsented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. R ASHAAD
## Moon Lake Electric Assn., Inc.



# Distribution Pole Replacement Costs

17-Oct-11 

## General Information: Kwinder

1. Standard distribution transformer Pole is 40 foot Class 4 Western Red Cedar 2. Replacement pole is a 40 foot Class 3 Western Red Cedar 3. Replacement is performed while circuit is energized. 4. Backhoe is normally required for installation, removal and replacement of distribution poles. 5. Most distribution lines are three-phase lines and replacement is estimated for that type of circuit. 6. No salvage value is given to the pole being retired since it will not be re-used. 7. The only new equipment being installed along with the replacement pole is the grounding of the new pole. 8. Hardware and other equipment on the original pole, other than in 7 above, is re-used. 9. Labor, transportation, and overheads are estimated to complete the retirement of the original pole and replace it with a new pole in the energized circuit as described above including the cost of the new pole.


## Estimated cost of this pole replacement process is $ 2,541.4. Backhoe is normally required for installation, removal and replacement of distribution poles. 5. Most distribution lines are three-phase lines and replacement is estimated for that type of circuit.

7. The only new equipment being installed along with the replacement pole is the grounding of the new pole. 8. Hardware and other equipment on the original pole, other than in 7 above, is re-used. 9. Labor, transportation, and overheads are estimated to complete the retirement of the original pole and replace it with a new pole in the energized circuit as described above including the cost of the new pole.


## Estimated cost of this pole replacement process is $ 2,541.
#### Barry NIX, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. A-72.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

Nov. 2, 1984.

William Grant Callow, II, Asst. Public Defender, and Dana Fabe, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

W.H. Hawley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, and Norman C. Gorsuch, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

OPINION

SINGLETON, Judge.

Barry Nix was convicted of misdemeanor assault, former AS 11.15.230, and *746unauthorized entry, former AS 11.20.135. He appeals. This is the third time this case has been before this court. *See Nix v. State,*624 P.2d 823 (Alaska App.1981), *State v. Nix,*Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 350 (April 27, 1983), and *Nix v. State,*Order of Clarification (November 23, 1981). Nix argues that the trial court failed to heed the mandates previously issued in this case. Specifically, he argues that the trial court erred by entering judgments of conviction against him without first determining whether he was actually afforded notice and an adequate opportunity to defend against the assault and unlawful entry charges, and by failing to make the requisite findings whether constitutional double jeopardy principles prohibited his conviction for assault. We have carefully reviewed Nix’s arguments in light of the record and the mandates previously issued and conclude that no reversible error has occurred.

The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.1

1

. In his appeal from the judgment entered on remand, Nix raises three issues for the first time. He argues that the prosecutor committed plain error in mentioning to the jury appellant’s post-arrest silence, and in arguing that Nix entered his victim’s trailer for the purpose of raping her. Finally, Nix argues that his counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. None of these errors, if established, is jurisdictional. While a finding of plain error would justify this court’s recognizing an issue for the first time on appeal even though it was not preserved at the trial level, it does not justify raising an issue for the first time in an appeal from a judgment on remand after two prior appeals. We therefore decline to consider these additional issues. We do not decide whether Nix could raise these issues in an application for post-conviction relief. *See*Criminal Rule 35(c) and (j); *Marrone v. State,*653 P.2d 672, 675 and n. 1 (Alaska App.1982).
#### Raymond Eugene PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-84-588.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 18, 1985.

Thomas Purcell, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Mary F. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, Raymond Eugene Porter, appeals from his conviction in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CRF-83-655, where in accordance with the jury’s verdict, he was sentenced pursuant to the terms of the Nonviolent Intermediate Of*541fenders Act, 22 O.S.Supp.1984, § 995 et seq., for the crime of Second Degree Burglary, After Former Conviction of Two Felonies.

The appellant raises three assignments of error, however, our decision in the first assignment of error is dispositive of this appeal.

The appellant complains that the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach the credibility of the sole defense witness, by asking questions that were not probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, in violation of 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B), and which were more prejudicial than probative, in violation of 12 O.S.1981, § 2403. We agree.

This Court has consistently held that mere accusations of criminal activity or arrest and charges not amounting to convictions are not available for introduction by the prosecution. *Brown v. State,*487 P.2d 963 (Okl.Cr.1971). In this case, the prosecution had no cause to question the defense witness about his involvement in the theft of a television when no charge or conviction was had against him. Since the prejudicial effect of the evidence presented substantially outweighs any probative value that it may have had, we are of the opinion that the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same hereby is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

PARKS, P.J., and BRETT, J., concur.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Eric
E. Marin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of Li3 Energy, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Li3 Energy, Inc.





Date:
      November 22, 2010
              By:
              /s/
      Eric E. MarinName:
              Eric
      E. MarinTitle:
              Interim
      Chief Financial Officer





A
signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to
Li3 Energy, Inc., and will be retained by Li3 Energy, Inc., and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2064 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2064

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of poly[[6-
  [(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diyl] [2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)imino]-1,6-hexanediyl[(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidinyl)imino]]) and bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Carper introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of poly[[6-
  [(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diyl] [2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)imino]-1,6-hexanediyl[(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidinyl)imino]]) and bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF POLY[[6-[(1,1,3,3-TETRAMETHYLBUTYL)AMINO]-1,3,5-
              TRIAZINE-2,4-DIYL] [2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL-4-
              PIPERIDINYL)IMINO]-1,6-HEXANEDIYL[(2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL-4-
              PIPERIDINYL)IMINO]]) AND BIS(2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL-4-
              PIPERIDYL) SEBACATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to mixtures of poly[[6-
[(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diyl] [2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)imino]-1,6-hexanediyl[(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidinyl)imino]]) and bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate) 
is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Airlines for America® 

September 1, 2016 

Mr. Michael J. O'Donnell, A.A.E. 

Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Subject: Airport SMS Draft Advisory Circular-Request for Extension of Comment Period 

Reference: Safety Management System for Certificated Airports 

Docket number FAA-201 0-0997 

Dear Mr. O'Donnell: 

On behalf of Airlines for America (A4A) member airlines 1

, I am writing to request a 60-day extension of 

the comment period for the Draft Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-37 A, Safety Management Systems 

(SMS) for Airports. 

A4A respectfully requests this extension for the following reasons: 

• With the deadline for the SNPRM also being September 12, 2016, a comprehensive 

review of both documents simultaneously has not been possible. To date, the focus of 

our view has been to provide constructive and meaningful comments on the SNPRM. 

The companion AC, which will affect aspects of airport SMS implementation having an 

impact on our member airlines, deserves the same focused review. 

• An extension is also justified as there is currently no revised "Initial Regulatory 

Evaluation" or cost/benefit analysis is in the docket. The public cannot effectively 

evaluate the impact of the proposed rule and supporting guidance based on a regulatory 

evaluation from 2010 that does not reflect the changes subsequently made in the 

SNPRM. 

Therefore, A4A's position is that an extension is required to provide adequate time to address the issues 

cited above. 

Thank you in advance, for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

C?vt l~ Paul J. McGraw 

Vice President, Operations & Safety 

1 A4A members are: Alaska Airlines, Inc.; American Airlines Group (American Airlines and US Airways); Atlas Air, Inc.; Federal 

Express Corporation.; Hawaiian Airlines; JetBiue Airways Corp.; Southwest Airlines Co.; United Continental Holdings, Inc.; and United 

Parcel Service Co. Air Canada is an associate member. 

1275 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Suite 1300 Washington, DC 20004 T 202.626.4000 W airlines org