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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7094

AUSTIN KERR BRAME,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WENDELL W. PIXLEY, Warden, St. Brides Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:11-cv-00564-RAJ-FBS)

Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 18, 2012

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Austin Kerr Brame, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Austin Kerr Brame seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Brame has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 of Global Services Partners Acquisition
      Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2006 (the
‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I Avinash Vashistha, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
      President of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Sec. 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Dated:
      June 14, 2006




By: /s/
      Avinash
      Vashistha


Avinash
      Vashistha


Chief
      Financial Officer and Executive Vice President


(Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re C r ystal Melody Meekins

, Relator

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 6 9 6

- CV

Trial court case number: 12

- FD

- 3066

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of G a lveston County

On September 1 1 , 201 7

, r elator

, Crystal Melody Meekins

, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent county judge to set a n immediate hearing on relator’s first amended motion for enforcement of possession or access and order to

appear and to vacate the respondent’s August 7, 2017 “Order to Transfer” in the underlying petition to modif y the parent

- child relationship . Relator ha s filed one volume

of a sworn mandamus record , including three volumes of a reporter’s record

. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 52. 7

.

T he Court requests a response to the petition for writ of mandamus by any real party in interest. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52. 8(b)(1)

. The response, if any, shall be filed

within 2 0 days from the date of this order

. See id. 2, 52.4

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 19 , 2017
#### Ceslyn LINDO and Lloyd Lindo, Appellants, v. Hyman KOFFLER, Appellee.

No. 4-86-1115.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1987.

Robert B. Miller of Law Offices of Friedman & Miller, North Miami Beach, for appellants.

Samuel Tyler Hill and James T. Spark-man of Hill, Neale and Riley, Fort Lauder-dale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Kashino v. Morell,*449 So.2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

ANSTEAD, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
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







I,
      Jon
      Suk, 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-QSB
      of Mystica Candle Corp. for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 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 Mystica Candle Corp.





Date: May
              20,
              2008
            By:
            /s/ Jon
              SukName:Jon
              SukTitle:Principal
              Executive Officer and Principal Financial
              Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         350,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 350,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,323
<OTHER-SE>                                     350,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   350,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                70,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (70,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (70,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (70,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Walter P. REED, as District Attorney of the 22nd Judicial District, Parish of Washington. v. WASHINGTON PARISH POLICE JURY, et al.

No. 87-CD-0700.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 3, 1987.

In re Reed, Walter Philip Hon.; applying for supervisory or remedial writs and writs of certiorari or review; Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 57996.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal for action.
Wednesday 24th
July, 1996.

American Furniture Company, Inc., Appellant,
against Record No. 0605-95-3 Claim No. 167-22-61
Patricia M. Foster, Appellee.

Upon a Rehearing
Before Judges Benton, Willis and Bray

It appears to the Court that the decisions of the Supreme
Court of Virginia in the cases of The Steinrich Group, et al. v.
Claudia H. Jemmott , Record No. 950829, Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Linda Kay

Martin , Record No. 951050, and Wampler-Longacre Chicken, Inc., et al. , Record No. 951072 (March 1, 1996), control the instant case and that,
thus, the award appealed from is erroneous.
Accordingly, the opinion previously rendered on February 27,
1996 is withdrawn, the award of the Virginia Workers' Compensation

Commission is reversed and the claim is dismissed.
This order shall be certified to the Virginia Workers'
Compensation Commission.

A Copy,

Teste:

Clerk
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 the Quarterly Report of Global Services Partners Acquisition
      Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2006 (the
‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I Rahul Prakash, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
      of
      the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Sec. 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Dated:
      June 14, 2006




By: /s/
      Rahul
      Prakash


Rahul
      Prakash


Chairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Walter RIASCO.

No. 88-KK-0176.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re Riasco, Walter; applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and supervisory writs; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, Nos. 87-2058, 87-2285; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-KW-0898.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23 (B)
                                                                  --------------



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
Iroquois Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 33-
36828, on Form S-8 of Iroquois Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated February 25,
2000 relating to the statements of net assets available for benefits of the
Iroquois Bancorp, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and
the related statement of changes in net assets available for benefits for the
years then ended and related schedules as of and for the year ended December 31,
1999 which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of
Iroquois Bancorp, Inc.



   /s/The Fagliarone Group, P.C.
--------------------------------
The Fagliarone Group, P.C.

Syracuse, New York
March 10, 2000
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15759-15760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6473]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition 
to the Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

[[Page 15760]]

(NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS 
decision to designate a class of employees from the Linde Ceramics 
Plant in Tonawanda, New York, as an addition to the Special Exposure 
Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act of 2000. On February 2, 2012, as provided for 
under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following 
class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All Atomic Weapons Employees who worked in any area at the Linde 
Ceramics Plant in Tonawanda, New York, from November 1, 1947, 
through December 31, 1953, for a number of work days aggregating at 
least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment 
or in combination with work days within the parameters established 
for one or more other classes of employees included in the SEC.

    This designation became effective on March 3, 2012, as provided for 
under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on March 3, 2012, 
members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, 
became members of the SEC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can 
also be submitted by email to [email protected].

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-6473 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2355 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-Propanediaminium, N-[3- 

[[[dimethyl[3-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)amino]propyl]ammonio]acetyl]amino]propyl]-2-hydroxyN,N,N′,N′,N′-pentamethyl-, trichloride, polymer with 2-propenamide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-Propanediaminium, 

N-[3-[[[dimethyl[3-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)amino]propyl]ammonio]acetyl]amino]propyl]-2-hydroxy-N,N,N′,N′,N′-pentamethyl-, trichloride, polymer 

with 2-propenamide. 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2355 IS

1 SECTION 1. 1,3-PROPANEDIAMINIUM, N-[3-[[[DIMETHYL [3- 

2 [(2-METHYL-1-OXO-2-PROPENYL)AMINO] 

3 PROPYL] AMMONIO] ACETYL] AMINO] 

4 PROPYL]-2-HYDROXY-N,N,N′,N′,N′- 

5 PENTAMETHYL-, TRICHLORIDE, POLYMER 

6 WITH 2-PROPENAMIDE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

9 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

10 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 1,3-Propanediaminium, N-[3- 

[[[dimethyl[3- [(2-methyl-1- 

oxo-2- propenyl) amino] 

propyl] ammonio] acetyl]amino] propyl] -2- 

hydroxy- N,N,N′,N′,N′- 

pentamethyl-, trichloride, 

polymer with 2-propenamide 

(CAS No. 916155–61–8) 

(provided for in subheading 

3906.90.50) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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

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

14 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
SERVED: April14, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RADIO HOLLAND USA, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. F AA-2013-0286 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On May 16,2013, the Federal. Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a 

Complaint. Radio Holland USA., Inc. ("Respondent") had filed a Request for Hearing on 

May 17, 2013. · 

On Apri19, 2014, Respondent withdrew its Request for Hearing, citing settlement. 

14 C.F .R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or 

a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge 

shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 
WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been read and 

considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing be and is hereby granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Se:i:vice List 

2 
FDMS No. FAA-2013-0286 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST-BY U.S. MAIL & FAX 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Jeanine Gotimer, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3272 

FAJ(: 718-995-5699 

Anacarolina Estaba, Respondent's Counsel 

Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP 

1000 Louisiana, Suite 3400 

Houston, TX77002-5011 

TEL: 713-276-5398 

FAX: 713-276-6398 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7108

STANLEY WALLACE MILLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-99-446-7)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 8, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Wallace Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 Because the district court’s order informed Miller that he had

sixty days to appeal, we consider his notice of appeal timely

filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); Butler v. Coral Volkswagen, Inc.,

804 F.2d 612, 615-17 (11th Cir. 1986).

2 Although the district court’s order is marked “filed” on June 17,

1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the

docket sheet on June 18, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order

was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date

of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d

1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Wallace Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999).1 We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Warden, Keen

Mountain, No. CA-99-446-7 (W.D. Va. June 18, 1999).2 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**

| 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                Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                   |   |   |                                                                                                 |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:                November 19,                2007 |   |   | /s/ Ban Jun Yang                                                                                     |
|                                                        |   |   | Ban                Jun Yang, President, CEO and Director(Principal                Executive Officer) |
|                                                   |   |   |                                                                                                 |

----
#### Donovan S. WILLIE v. BARRIERE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

No. 87-C-1449.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Barriere Construction Co,; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-CA-0717; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 299655.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 669.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.
#### STATE ex rel. Jessie CAGE a/k/a Jessie Lee v. Hilton BUTLER, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 88-KH-1402.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Cage, Jessie a/k/a; Lee, Jessie; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “J”, No. 369-439.

Denied. Moot.
#### STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT v. Salvatore CAMPISI.

No. 86-OC-1301.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Campisi, Salvatore; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 86-401; Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 41560.

Prior report: La.App., 489 So.2d 1079.

Denied. See *State DOTD v. Saxon,*500 So.2d 379 (1987).

MARCUS and COLE, JJ., would grant the writ.