alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1000** 

KEVIN JONES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; JUDGE DO YET EARLY; LAB CORP; DR. GEORGE MAHA , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from t he United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken

. Joseph R. McCrorey , Magistrate Judge. ( 1:11

- cv
- 03110

- MBS )

Submitted : February 16, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dism issed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kevin Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Kevin Jones seeks to appeal a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation that his civil rights comp laint be

dismissed. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

-
46 (1949). The order Jones seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for seizure and dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 32.2

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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC (the Company) for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick Bratton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 7, 2008



/s/ Patrick BrattonPatrick BrattonChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Thomas W. Winfree, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Village Bank and Trust Financial Corp. for the quarter ended September 30, 2005;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  November 10, 2005

By: /s/ Thomas W. Winfree

Thomas W. Winfree

President and

Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of BG Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Robert Grubbs, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)            The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)            The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ J. Robert Grubbs                  |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   | J. Robert Grubbs                      |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | August 18, 2006                       |

 

24

----
#### Camille Augustin, Wife of/and Elmer EBERTS v. Catherine B. Mayer, Wife of/and Martin B. MAYER, Jr., Catherine Clark Mayer.

No. 86-C-2452.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Orkin Exterminating Co. Inc. — Other; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86 CA 233; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, No. 257-006.

Denied.
#### Brenda FUQUA v. GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 89-C-1215.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Fuqua, Brenda; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA88-0097; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 141-529.

Prior report: La.App,, 542 So.2d 211,

Denied.
EPA’s RESPONSE to Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft 

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further 

Policy Review.

1 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rule 

Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans 

RIN 2060-AS55 

EPA’s Response: The EPA proposes to add the following paragraph to section IV.I on pages 96-

97 (changes in red): 

I. Changes to FLM Consultation Requirements 

The EPA believes that state consultation with FLMs is a critical part of the creation of 

quality SIPs. As mentioned earlier, the EPA is proposing to extend the FLM consultation 

requirements of §51.308(i)(2) to progress reports that are not SIP revisions. In addition, the EPA 

believes further edits to §51.308(i)(2) are necessary because the current requirement for 

consultation at least 60 days prior to a public hearing may not occur sufficiently early in the 

state’s planning process to meaningfully inform the state’s development of the long-term 

strategy. This proposed rule change would add a requirement that such consultation occur early 

enough to allow the state time for full consideration of FLM input, but no fewer than 60 days 

prior to a public hearing or other public comment opportunity. A consultation opportunity that 

takes place no less than 120 days prior to a public hearing or other public comment opportunity 

would be deemed to have been “early enough.” 

Finally, the EPA notes that pursuant to the existing provisions of §51.307(a), FLMs are 

also required to be consulted with regard to new source review of any new major stationary 

source or major modification that would be constructed in an area that is designated attainment 
EPA’s RESPONSE to Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft 

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further 

Policy Review.

2 

or unclassified that may affect visibility in any Class I Federal area. No changes are being 

proposed to these consultation requirements.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 174 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 174

To authorize representation of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 
  the case of Philip Tinsley III v. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 4, 1999

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize representation of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 
  the case of Philip Tinsley III v. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Whereas, in the case of Philip Tinsley III v. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
        Civil Action No. 99-952-A, pending in the United States District Court 
        for the Eastern District of Virginia, the plaintiff has sued the United 
        States Senate Committee on the Judiciary; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to defend Senate committees in civil actions: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to represent 
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in the case of Philip Tinsley III 
v. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ecolocap Solutions Inc., formerly XL Generation International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Michel St-Pierre, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

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

Dated this 12thday of May, 2008.

MICHEL ST. PIERREMichel St. PierreChief Financial Officer






























---
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

## vw8~i08ra wit3 

## (8)mm inkpeas for S'mncbr G $lWpa mvntheaeb 

### #lo~.au" The body of the hot lt will be observed ir 8ilozi1 upon the question of whether ihe 8gpPopriatlonsI& therein are to be available Sor expenditure after the erplretion oS the fiscal.

year ending Ailgust?il, 1941. The .&twas Passed aa 30. emergencymamre~ effeatIre on my 1;; 1941. It appears Smri the 

### aertfSiouteap en& by the Shies &lerX OS the Pause th6t the Act was passed fp tl Eouzo on Ziarch20, 1941; 

### and it appears from th6 certificate of the ;:ecretary

OS tke sennte tkat the AOCw6 pazsed by tht a-ate on April 80,194l.

not wao finally paq#ed end aads effe6tlvu.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                         PLUM CREEK TIMBER COMPANY, INC.
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Years Ending December 31,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In Millions)                           2005     2004     2003     2002     2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Consolidated pretax income from
   continuing operations                $339     $366     $186     $235     $196

Amortization of capitalized
   interest                               --       --       --       --       --

Interest
                                         112      111      118      105       76
Less interest capitalized during
   the period                             --       --       --       --       --

Net amortization of debt discount
   and premium and issuance
   expense                                 6        7        8        8        2

Interest portion of rental expense         1        1        1        1       --
                                        ----------------------------------------

   Earnings                             $458     $485     $313     $349     $274
                                        ========================================

Interest                                $112     $111     $118     $105     $ 76

Net amortization of debt discount
   and premium and issuance
   expense                                 6        7        8        8        2

Interest portion of rental expense         1        1        1        1       --
                                        ----------------------------------------
   Fixed Charges                        $119     $119     $127     $114     $ 78
                                        ----------------------------------------

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges       3.8      4.1      2.5      3.1      3.5
                                        ========================================
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-43441, 33-43541 and 33-81266) pertaining to the Neurogen Stock
Option Plan, the 1993 Omnibus Incentive Plan and the 1993 Non-Employee Directors
Plan of Neurogen Corporation of our report dated February 14, 1997, with respect
to the financial statements of Neurogen Corporation included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 1997
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Frank L. Smith, Appellant.

*People*v. Smith, 171 App. Div. —, affirmed.

(Argued March 6, 1916;

decided March 21, 1916.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 8, 1915, which affirmed a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree and also affirmed an order of said court overruling a demurrer to the indictment.

*Herman J. Westwood*for appellant.

*William S. Stearns*for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ.; Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., concurs solely on the authority of *People*v. *Lammerts*(164 N. Y. 137). Were it not for that decision he should deem the indictment fatally defective.
#### The Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co., Appellee, *v.*Henderson et al., Appellants. 

(No. 31324

Decided March 24, 1948.)

*Mr. Truman A. Herron,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Long & Bloom*and *Mr. J. Warren Kinney, Jr.,*for appellant. >

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the *578reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43999

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRUCE WAYNE COSTA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 659

Filed: August 25, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of five years, for aggravated battery, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Bruce Wayne Costa pled guilty to aggravated battery. I.C. §§ 18-903(b) and 18-907(a) 

and/or (b). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court 

sentenced Costa to a unified term of twelve years, with a minimum period of confinement of five 

years. Costa appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Costa’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Bobby Ray STEADHAM v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 58070.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 16, 1988.

Bobby R. Steadham, Parchman, pro se.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman and Mike Moore, Attys. Gen. by Deirdre D. McCrory, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from County Court, Rankin County; James W. Smith, County Judge.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
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 SmartPros Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, the
undersigned, Allen S. Greene, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Stanley
P. Wirtheim, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 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.

              A signed original of this written statement has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

                                            /S/ ALLEN S. GREENE
                                            -------------------
                                               Allen S. Greene
                                           Chief Executive Officer

                                           /S/STANLEY P. WIRTHEIM
                                           ----------------------
                                             Stanley P. Wirtheim
                                           Chief Financial Officer

May 8, 2007