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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6134

GREGORY M. TAYLOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-95-430-AM)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory M. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as

amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Law. Co-op.

Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that

a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Taylor v. Angelone, No. CA-95-430-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 16, 1995). 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
#### Lazaro DESVERGUNDT, Appellant, v. KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., a/k/a Hooper Manufacturer, Inc., Appellee.

No. 86-2833.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 28, 1987.

Gerald E. Rosser, Miami, for appellant.

George, Hartz & Lundeen and A. Scott Lundeen, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary judgment under review upon the authority of *Shaw v. General Motors Corp.,*503 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). As we did in *Shaw,*we certify the following questions of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida:

> I. WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 95.031(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1983), ABOLISHING THE STATUTE OF REPOSE IN PRODUCT LIABILITY ACTIONS, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY AS TO A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ACCRUED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT.

> II. IF NOT, WHETHER THE DECISION OF *PULLUM V. CINCINNATI, INC.,*476 S0.2D 657 (FLA.1985), *APPEAL DISMISSED,*— U.S. -, 106 S.CT. 1626, 90 L.ED.2D 174 (1986), WHICH OVERRULED *BATTILLA V. ALLIS CHALMERS MFG. CO.,*392 S0.2D 874 (FLA.1980), APPLIES SO AS TO BAR A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ACCRUED AFTER THE *BATTILLA*DECISION BUT BEFORE THE *PUL-LUM*DECISION.

Affirmed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3667

_____________________________

LARRY BRYANT NETTLES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Timothy Register, Judge.

March 8, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
50067.

#### LANDMARK FINANCE CORPORATION v. CITY OF WARNER ROBINS.

Marshall, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of the garnishee, City of Warner Robins.

The sole issue is whether or not the trial court erroneously interpreted §§ 46-801 and 46-805 of the Code of Georgia (Ga. L. 1945, pp. 438, 439, 440) in granting garnishee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing appellant’s traverse to appellee’s answer to the summons of garnishment.

Appellant, Landmark Finance Corporation, sought to garnishee appellee, the City of Warner Robins, Georgia, employer of the defendant. Appellee answered the summons setting out defendant’s earnings, exemptions and amounts subject to garnishment, and also stating that appellee did not assent to the garnishment. Appellee did not pay the amount admitted subject to garnishment into court. Appellant filed a traverse to appellee’s answer. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment and the trial judge, after a hearing, granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed appellant’s traverse. Appellant contended in its brief that: "Appellant is not seeking a judgment against garnishee, and has not requested its assent. However, appellant insists that the trial court erred when it granted garnishee’s motion for a summary judgment and dismissed appellant’s traverse; and further that all amounts subject to garnishment should have been paid into court.” *Held:*

The issue in this case is controlled by the holding of this court *in. Seaboard Finance Co. v. City of Decatur,*119 Ga. App. 223 (166 SE2d 638). The fact that the General Assembly by the Act of 1970 (Ga. L. 1970, pp. 724, 728) attempted to repeal Code Ann. § 46-805 does not change the result of this case, since the Supreme Court in *Mayson v. Davis,*227 Ga. 399 (181 SE2d 64) held that the attempted repeal was invalid because the repealing Act did not describe the law to be repealed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Webb, J., concur.*

*357Submitted January 6, 1975

Decided March 5, 1975

Rehearing denied March 21, 1975

*J. Sidney Lanier,*for appellant.

*Wisse, Kushinka, Calhoun, Godwin & Long, Fred E. Godwin, Jr.,*for appellee.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2317 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Acetoacet-o-Chloro Anilide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Acetoaceto-Chloro Anilide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACETOACET-O-CHLORO ANILIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.17 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Acetoacet-o-Chloro Anilide) is amended by striking the 

7 date in the effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2317 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
08/11/2010 12:36 2022675075 

OFFICE OF RULEMAKING PAGE 02 

© 

U 5, Oapartm&nt 

of Tionsporlatlon 

Fedeial AviaHon 

AdministraHon 

Nsshvllla flighl SIsndards OlsTriel Ofllco 

2 Inlarnslionel Plajia, Suito 7O0 

NasMlle, T»ftne«s<J» 37Z17 

aiB-324-1300, FAX S16-32^-1300 

April 30, 2010 

Corporate Flight Management 

625 Fitzhugh Boulevard 

Smyrna, TN 37167 

Attention: Alan Howell 

Dear Mr, Howell; 

We tiave received a memorandum from our regional office regarding Corporate Flight 

Managements' (CFM) request to operate the BAE-4101 under the 14 CFR Part 121 

regulation3 as a Supplemental Air Carrier. 

According to the information contained in the memorandum, dated April 22, 2010, the Office 

of Rule Making and AFS'220 have completed the review of CFM's Petition for Exemption 

from 14 CFR Part 1119.21(a)(3). After considering all the facts it was determined that an 

exemption will not be required and the aircraft can be operated under an authorization 

through the issuance of Operation Specifications. 

The memorandum also stated that CFM should withdraw their Petition for Exemption. 

Sincerely, 

Walter H. Bevan 

Manager
1 The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2557

___________ Arlene Butters; Richard Butters, In * the Estate of David Butters by and * through Arlene and Richard Butters on * Behalf of Themselves and the Estate of * David Butters, * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the David H. Ash, Judge, Circuit Court of * Eastern District of Missouri. Pike County, Probate Division; Pike * County Probate Court, Circu it Court of * [UNPUBLISHED] Pike County; McIlroy and Millan Law * Firm; Nina Long, Public Administrator; * Community State Bank, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 16, 2010 Filed: April 22, 2010

___________ Before RILEY, 1 Chief Judge, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.2 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- Missouri inmate Richard Butters and his wi fe Arlene Butters appeal the district court’s 2dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 comp laint alleging a conspiracy to “rob and loot” the estate of David Butters, Rich ard Butters’s father. Upon careful de novo review, seeHodak v. City of St. Peters , 535 F.3d 899, 903 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of determination as to plainti ff’s standing); Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of grant of motion to dismiss); Cooper v. Schriro , 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review of dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A), we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### C.F.I. ANTILLES, N.V., INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Netherlands Antilles, Appellant, v. INTAL CORP., a Florida corp., Jerry A. Gross, as Trustee and as an individual, and Laurans A. Mendelson, an individual, Appellees.

No. 86-1693.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 21, 1987.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1987.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and Eben G. Crawford and Joanne M. Rose, Miami, for appellant.

Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin and Joel S. Perwin, Richard & Richard and Dennis A. Richard, Miami, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Confirming that joint venturers are indispensable parties, *see Deal Farms, Inc. v. Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc.,*382 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), we reverse the Order of Dismissal with Prejudice and remand this cause to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine *39whether a joint venture existed, to make findings, and to take appropriate action.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit10(a)(v)

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

        THISAGREEMENT is entered into as of the 31st day of December, 2002 between ABATIXCORP. (“Employer”) and TERRY W. SHAVER (“Executive”). 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

        Employeris a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in Dallas, Texas.Employer is engaged in the sale and distribution of personal protection andsafety equipment and durable and nondurable supplies to the asbestos abatement,industrial safety and hazardous materials industries. Executive has substantialbusiness experience and related business skills which can be utilized inEmployer’s business. Employer desires to employ Executive upon the termsand conditions hereinafter set forth, and the Executive desires to accept suchemployment. Employer and Executive desire to set forth in writing the terms andconditions of their agreements and understandings. 

        NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises containedherein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy ofwhich is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound,hereby agree as follows: 

I.DEFINITIONS

- Executive.  The term "Executive" as used herein shall mean TERRY W. SHAVER
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.4.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Traci L. Memmott, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing  distribution  or  servicing  reports  filed in  respect  of  periods
included in the year covered by this annual report,  of American  Express Credit
Account Master Trust;

2.  Based on my knowledge, the  information in these reports,  taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and  servicing,  or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4.  Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance  statement  included in
the report and required to be delivered  to the trustee in  accordance  with the
terms of the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,  agreement,  and  except as
disclosed in the reports,  the servicer has fulfilled its obligations  under the
servicing agreement; and

5.  The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum  servicing  standards based upon the report provided
by an independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program for  Mortgage  Bankers or similar
procedure,  as set forth in the pooling and  servicing,  or similar,  agreement,
that is included in these reports.



Date:  March 29, 2004

/s/ Traci L. Memmott
-----------------------
Name:  Traci L. Memmott
Title: Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, American Express Centurion Bank
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Nick Riehle, Vice President, Administration and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ J. Nick RiehleJ. Nick RiehleVice President, Administration and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 13, 2007
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

I,
David H. McCormick, Chief Executive Officer of FreeMarkets, Inc., hereby certify to my knowledge, and I, Sean
M. Rollman, Acting Chief Financial Officer, of FreeMarkets, Inc., hereby certify to my knowledge, that:

(a) The
Companys periodic report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 (the Form 10-K),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

* * *

Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Acting Chief Financial OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ DAVID H. MCCORMICK
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ SEAN M. ROLLMANDAVID H. MCCORMICK
    
    
    
    
    
    SEAN M. ROLLMANDate: March 1, 2004
    
    
    
    Date: March 1, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging
or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to FreeMarkets, Inc. and will be retained by FreeMarkets, 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. 2388 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2388

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-Pyridinecarbonitrile, 
 5-[(2-cyano-4-nitrophenyl)azo]-2-[[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] amino]-4-
                        methyl-6-(phenylamino)-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mrs. Hagan 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 3-Pyridinecarbonitrile, 
 5-[(2-cyano-4-nitrophenyl)azo]-2-[[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] amino]-4-
                        methyl-6-(phenylamino)-.

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

SECTION 1. 3-PYRIDINECARBONITRILE, 5-[(2-CYANO-4-NITROPHENYL)AZO]-2-
              [[2-(2-HYDROXYETHOXY)ETHYL] AMINO]-4-METHYL-6-
              (PHENYLAMINO)-.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.93 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to [3-Pyridinecarbonitrile, 5-
[(2-cyano-4-nitrophenyl)azo]-2-[[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] amino]-4-
methyl-6-(phenylamino)-) 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>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-7251

JUAN CARLOS ESCOBAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Graham C. Mullen, District Judge.

(CR-92-36-MU, CA-97-230-MU)

Submitted: August 25, 1998

Decided: September 10, 1998

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Juan Carlos Escobar, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE

OF THE 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:

Juan Carlos Escobar appeals from the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998) as barred by the one-year limitation period imposed by the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"),

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (effective Apr. 24, 1996). Escobar's conviction became final in January 1994. Because the conviction became final prior to implementation of the one-year limitation

period, Escobar had until April 23, 1997, in which to file his § 2255

motion. See Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th

Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208).

Escobar's § 2255 motion was dated and sworn on April 22, 1997

and filed in the district court on April 25, 1997. We conclude that the

motion was not time barred. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276

(1988) (notice of appeal is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison

officials); see also Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998)

(applying Houston to the filing of habeas petition); Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep't, 947 F.2d 733, 735-36 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying Houston to filing of civil rights complaint for statute of limitation

purposes).

Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue,

vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.

We deny Escobar's motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
**Exhibit      32.2**

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                   |   |                                                            |
|----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:                October 31, 2007 |   | By:                 /s/                Yan Liang Fan  |
|                                   |   | Yan                Liang Fan                                    |
|                                   |   | Chief                Financial Officer                          |

----