alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8599
JAMES CALVIN HORTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY L. WOODARD; RICK JACKSON, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-759-5-H) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Calvin Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Horton v. Woodard , No. CA-95-759-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 1995; Nov. 29, 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register: October 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 205)]
[Notices]               
[Page 65456-65457]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25oc10-23]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DOD-2010-OS-0147]

 
Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Notice to delete a system of records.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete a 
system of records notice from its existing inventory of record systems 
subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

[[Page 65457]]

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
November 24, 2010, unless comments are received which result in a 
contrary determination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, Room 3C843 
Pentagon, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom of 
Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, 
Washington, DC 20301-1155.
    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete one 
system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed 
deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act 
of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a 
new or altered system report.

    Dated: October 20, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
Deletion:

DWHS P32

System Name:
    Standards of Conduct Inquiry File (February 22, 1993; 58 FR 10227).

Reason:
    The OSD Standards of Conduct Inquiry File (P32) can been deleted. 
The system is covered by the System of Record Notice OSC/GOVT-1 OSC 
Complaint, Litigation and Political Activity Files (November 19, 1999; 
64 FR 63359).

[FR Doc. 2010-26840 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before GASTON , HOUTZ , and MYERS Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Tyler K

. MIDKIFF Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 20 21 001 53
Decided: 23 November 2021 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge: K. Scott Woodard Sentence adjudged 21 April 2021 by a special court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune , North Carolina, co nsisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for three months , and a bad

- conduct discharge

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Doug Ottenwess , JAGC, USN For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.United States v. Midkiff , NMCCA No. 20 21 001 53 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________
PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudi cial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 1 T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 29

To designate the week of May 2, 1999, as ‘‘National Correctional Officers

and Employees Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 1999

Mr. ROBB (for himself and Mr. CAMPBELL) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

To designate the week of May 2, 1999, as ‘‘National

Correctional Officers and Employees Week’’.

Whereas the operation of correctional facilities represents a

crucial component of our criminal justice system;

Whereas correctional personnel play a vital role in protecting

the rights of the public to be safeguarded from criminal

activity;

Whereas correctional personnel are responsible for the care,

custody, and dignity of the human beings charged to

their care; and

Whereas correctional personnel work under demanding circumstances and face danger in their daily work lives:

Now, therefore, be it
2

SRES 29 IS

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of May

2 2, 1999, as ‘‘National Correctional Officers and Employ3 ees Week’’. The President is authorized and requested to

4 issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United

5 States to observe such week with appropriate ceremonies

6 and activities.

Æ
#### Ella Nora MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1596.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 9, 1988.

*1076Bradley R. Stark, Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and John M. Koenig, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Judge.

On appeal, Martin argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to be certified as indigent for purposes of this appeal. While proper review of this order is by motion, see Rule 9.430, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we treat the issue as if the proper remedy had been sought, *see*Rule 9.040(c).

We find the action of the trial court was incorrect in two respects. First, the order of denial fails to state the reasons therefor as required by the express terms of Rule 9.430. Second, appellant was declared indigent eight months prior to sentencing and an assistant public defender was appointed to represent her. At the sentencing hearing, a private attorney appeared on appellant’s behalf and moved for substitution of counsel which was granted. In the renewed motion for insolvency, counsel complied with section 57.081(1), Florida Statutes, by including an affidavit stating he had received no fee for his representation. We find the facts in this case analogous to those presented in *Fields v. Jack Eckerd Corp.,*439 So.2d 347 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983), and, absent a showing of change in the status of appellant, the trial court incorrectly denied her request. We therefore reverse and remand this cause to the trial court to reconsider its decision to deny certification of appellant as an indigent.

We find the other issues presented by appellant to be without merit and we therefore affirm the adjudication of guilt and the sentence imposed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, John R. Strangfeld, Chief
Executive Officer of The Prudential Insurance Company of America, hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, containing the financial statements of The Prudential Variable Contract Real
Property Account (a separate account of The Prudential Insurance Company of America) and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership (the Report), 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Account
and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership.



Date: March 25, 2011/s/ John R. StrangfeldJohn R. Strangfeld Chief Executive Officer The Prudential Insurance Company of
America


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 70

To authorize representation of Senate and Members of the Senate in the

case of James E. Pietrangelo, II v. United States Senate, et al.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 18, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize representation of Senate and Members of the

Senate in the case of James E. Pietrangelo, II v. United

States Senate, et al.

Whereas, in the case of James E. Pietrangelo, II v. United

States Senate, et al., Case No. 1:99–CV–323, pending in

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the plaintiff has named the United States

Senate and all Members of the Senate as defendants; and

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend the Senate and Members of the Senate in civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it
2

SRES 70 ATS

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed

2 to represent the Senate and all Members of the Senate

3 in the case of James E. Pietrangelo, II v. United States

4 Senate, et al.

Æ
Exhibit 10.31


December 12, 2001



Ms. LuAnn D. Hanson
385 Palm Springs Drive
Colorado Springs, Colorado  80908

Dear Ms. Hanson:

I am pleased to confirm Ramtron's extension of your employment contract for
your continuation in the position of Chief Financial Officer and Vice
President of Finance of Ramtron International Corporation.

The following are the essential points of our arrangement:

1.  Your salary shall be $165,000.00 annually, paid semi-monthly.

2.  The terms and conditions of the contract entered into between you and
    Ramtron dated February 2, 2001 shall remain the same with the contract
    term ending December 31, 2003.

3.  It is understood that your current stock option allotment will continue to
    be priced and vest at their existing rates.

I very much look forward to your continued employment with Ramtron and feel
your leadership will be significant in achieving our overall objectives.

Please sign and return one of the originals of this extension offer indicating
your acceptance.

Sincerely,                         I accept this offer.


/S/ William W. Staunton, III        /S/ LuAnn D. Hanson
----------------------------        --------------------------
William W. Staunton, III            LuAnn D. Hanson
Chief Executive Officer             Chief Financial Officer and
                                    Vice President of Finance

WWS/klb

                                    Page-1
<PAGE>
#### Charles Leo GUILBEAU v. Dulan W. FONTENOT and Victor Fontenot, et al.

No. 87-CC-1138.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 19, 1987.

In re Pacific Marine Ins. Co.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW87-0273; Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, Nos. 85-50006, 85-50009; 15th Judicial District, Div. “A”, No. 85-50008-D; 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 85-50039.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 566.

Granted. The action in the Court of Appeal is vacated and set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal for briefing, argument and opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TIFFANY MCCALL,

Petitioner

v.

STRENGTH OF NATURE, LLC AND 

STRENGTH OF NATURE COMPANY,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 145 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

I, Andre' DiMino, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of ADM Tronics
Unlimited, 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. I am the registrant's only certifying officer and 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
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
me 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 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 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. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of 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.

Date:  January 27, 2006                 /s/ Andre' DiMino
                                            Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has
been provided to ADM Tronics Unlimited, Inc. and will be retained by
ADM Tronics Unlimited, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6661

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LORENZA PORTER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-80, CA-98-234-3) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenza Porter, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lorenza Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. 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 United States v. Porter , Nos. CR-95-80; CA-98-234-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2000). 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
the third day o January, two thousand and one

Concurrent Resolution

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked and destroyed

four commercial aircraft, crashing two of them into the World

Trade Center in New York City, and crashing another aircraft

into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.; and

Whereas thousands of innocent people were killed and injured

as a result of those attacks, including the passengers and crew

of the four aircraft, workers and visitors in the World Trade

Center and the Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders: Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

(1) in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States

on September 11, 2001, United States citizens should join

together to defend and honor the Nation and its symbols of

strength; and

(2) for a period of 30 days after the date on which this

resolution is agreed to, each United States citizen and every

community in the Nation is encouraged to display the flag

of the United States at homes, places of work and business,

public buildings, and places of worship to remember those

individuals who have been lost and to show the solidarity,

resolve, and strength of the Nation.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 176

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, June 28, 2001, or Friday, June 29,

4 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent res5 olution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
2

•HCON 176 EH

1 adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, July 10, 2001, or until

2 noon on the second day after Members are notified to reas3 semble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

4 whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses

5 or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, June

6 28, 2001, Friday, June 29, 2001, Saturday, June 30,

7 2001, Monday, July 2, 2001, Tuesday, July 3, 2001,

8 Thursday, July 5, 2001, Friday, July 6, 2001, or Satur9 day, July 7, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this

10 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des11 ignee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Mon12 day, July 9, 2001, or until such time on that day as may

13 be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the

14 motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second

15 day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to

16 section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs

17 first.

18 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

19 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

20 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead21 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House
3

•HCON 176 EH

1 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

2 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 2001.

Attest:

Clerk.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 176

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the

House of Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.
#### Harold Bell EVANS, Jr. v. Brenda Deason EVANS.

Civ. 5698.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 4, 1987.

Harold Bell Evans, Jr., pro se.

No brief for appellee.

*319EDWARD N. SCRUGGS, Retired Circuit Judge.

This is a divorce case.

The husband contends that the trial court erred in vesting title to certain real estate in the wife, in not equally dividing it when the minor children become of age, in rendering a divorce, and in granting the custody of the children to the wife. The trial court’s judgment was rendered upon the *ore tenus*testimony of the wife. Since no transcript of that evidence or an authorized substitute therefor is contained in the record, we are required to conclusively presume that the final judgment of the trial court was supported by the wife’s *ore ten-us*testimony. *Maker v. Maker,*487 So.2d 948 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); *Jones v. Jones,*464 So.2d 125 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Consequently, we have no alternative but to affirm the judgment.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by Retired Circuit Judge EDWARD N. SCRUGGS while serving on active duty status as a judge of this court under the provisions of § 12-18-10(e) of the Code of Alabama of 1975, and this opinion is hereby adopted as that of the court.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.