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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6751

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ENRIQUE GARCIA BURGOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:16-cr-00579-RBH-2; 4:18-cv02806-RBH)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Enrique Garcia Burgos, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Enrique Garcia Burgos seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 motion 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 Burgos has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
July 1, 2015

Mr. Mark Alan Foley

137 Foxwood Circle

Bonaire, GA 31005

Dear Mr. Foley :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ § 61.113( a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and

(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains

why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your April 3, 2015

, exemption request into the public docket

(No. FAA− 20 15

− 1265 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The

information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whol e.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments availabl e to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you ma y call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION for the year ended December 31, 2009, I, Eric A. Balzer, Chief
Financial Officer of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:





(1)           such
Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for the year
ended December 31, 2009, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAMTRON
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for the year ended December 31, 2009, fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the report.








/s/ Eric A.
Balzer


Eric A.
Balzer


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Accounting Officer and


Duly
Authorized Officer of the


Registrant)





February
18, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Ramtron International Corporation and will be retained by Ramtron International
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130700(18) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan LEONOR CASTELLON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130700 COA: 265650 WCAC: 04-000316 DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Co urt’s order of June 30, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

W EAVER
, J., would grant reconsideration.

K ELLY
, J., would grant reconsider ation and, on reconsidera tion, would remand to the magistrate for the reasons given in her previous statement in this case, Castellon v Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation , 475 Mich 898 (2006).

p0918 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 26, 2006

Clerk
Revised MATS preamble
12/16/2011 04:22 PM

From: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cortney --

Attached is a revised preamble and redline against yesterday's version.

Thank you.

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division
U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01
109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-5430

FAX: 919-541-5450

EO12866NESHAPMACT_NSPSforUtilitiesMAT S2060_AP52Final20111216.docx

Redline 121611 vs. 121511.docx
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**Certifications**
**Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Nicholas Csendes, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Ansoft Corporation, the registrant;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control of financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 2, 2005      By:/s/ Nicholas Csendes      Nicholas Csendes  President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Harold TUTHILL, Appellant, v. ANTHONY DIEGUEZ, P.A., Appellee.

No. 87-594.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 21, 1988.

Harold Tuthill, in pro. per.

Dieguez & Quintero, Hialeah, for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was instituted by the appellee following a complaint to collect a past due bill for legal services. The defendant, the appellant herein, was confined to the state’s correctional system, and pro se filed an answer to the complaint and thereafter what purported to be a counterclaim. The counterclaim was met by a motion to dismiss which was granted. The matter was set, apparently for final hearing, and was met by a motion for continuance. Thereafter the trial court entered a judgment which indicated a default had been entered against the defendant and went on to award $15,501.99 as damages. The defendant filed a motion to set aside final judgment and thereafter a motion for an order to have the defendant transported from the correctional institution to Dade County for purposes of the hearing. The trial court entered an order directing the sheriff to transport the defendant to Dade County.1 Notwithstanding the order, the defendant was not transported and the defendant’s motion for rehearing or motion to vacate was denied. We reverse.

First, with an answer filed, there was no basis to enter a default on the complaint. Second, the defendant was not transported to Dade County pursuant to the court’s order. It is interesting to note that the order said he was to be “transported for trial” when a previous order indicated there was no trial, and that it was on “a default” that the final judgment was entered. It appears that no proper default was entered. The final judgment is set aside and the matter is returned to the trial court for a trial on the issues as made by the original complaint and answer.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

1

. The order reads as follows:

"The Defendant having made a Motion before this Court requesting to be transported for a hearing scheduled on the 20th day of January, 1987, at 1:15 p.m., it is herein

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Sheriff of Dade County transport the Defendant, HAROLD TUTHILL, to Dade County for trial on January 20, 1987, and it is further

ORDERED that the Sheriff of Dade County return the Defendant, Harold Tuthill to Avon Park Correctional Institution at the conclusion of said hearing.”
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.23

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The compensation package for non-employee directors is currently comprised of
annual cash retainers, meeting fees and grants of restricted common stock. Each
director receives a $40,000 annual retainer for service to the Board. The
Chairman of the Board of Directors receives an additional annual retainer of
$30,000, the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors receives
an additional annual cash retainer of $10,000, and the Chairman of the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, the Chairman of the Corporate
Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board of Directors and members of the
Audit Committee (other than the Chairman) each receives an additional annual
retainer of $5,000. Each director also receives a $2,000 fee for attending
regular meetings of the Board. Members of the Audit Committee receive a $2,000
fee for attending committee meetings, while members of the Corporate Governance
and Nominating Committee and members of the Compensation Committee receive a
$1,500 fee for attending committee meetings. Unless otherwise designated by the
committee chair, each committee member receives one-half of the regular
committee-meeting fee for attending committee meetings held telephonically. In
addition to the foregoing cash fees, non-employee directors also receive 2,000
shares of restricted common stock. Directors have the choice to elect to take
all or a portion of their Board fees in common stock of the Company, and may
defer all or part of their fee compensation. Directors are reimbursed for
expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings.
EX-10.2






2005 APPENDIX

TO THE

ECC CAPITAL CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN

FOR

JOHN KOHLER




	 	 	 
	Participant	 	Performance Targets/Bonus Awards
	John Kohler, Executive Vice

President, Capital Markets

and Secondary Marketing

	 	1. Mr. Kohler shall be eligible to

receive a performance bonus of $500,000

upon reaching a level of $5,000,000,000

in total securitizations and whole loan

sales during the period from February

18, 2005 through December 31, 2005

(“Performance Target Period”) on or

prior to December 31, 2005.

2. Mr. Kohler shall be eligible to

receive an additional performance bonus

of $500,000 upon reaching a level of

$8,000,000,000 in total securitizations

and whole loan sales during the

Performance Target Period on or prior

to December 31, 2005.
Exhibit 10.2


    
      

    

    Exhibit
      10.2


     

    
      		 	
              Global
                Private Client Group

               

              Merrill
                Lynch Business

              Financial
                Services Inc.

              222
                North LaSalle Street

              17th
                Floor

              Chicago,
                Illinois 60601

              (312)
                499-3284

              FAX:
                (312) 499-3254

            
	 	 	 
	 	 	
              May
                19,
                2005

            


    

    


    Mr.
      Chris Broquit

    YP
      Corp

    4840
      E.
      Jasmine Street, Suite 105

    Mesa,
      AZ 85205

    


    RE:
      WCMA LINE OF CREDIT NO. 412-02104 ("Line of Credit")

    


    Dear
      Mr. Broquist,

    


    It
      is a
      pleasure to inform you that we have approved a renewal of the Line of Credit
      for
      YP Corp.

    


    As
      renewed, the new Maturity Date will be April 30, 2006, with all other terms
      and
      conditions remaining unchanged. In connection with this renewal, a $10,000.00
      fee will be charged to the WCMA Account.

    


    Should
      you have any questions, please contact Nick Zappia at (213)
      236-2077.

    


    Very
      truly yours,

    


    Merrill
      Lynch Business Financial Services Inc.

    


    
      	
              By:

            	
              /s/
                Jack Gongaware

            
	 	
              Jack
                Gongaware

            
	 	
              Credit
                Manager

            


    

     

     

    
      	
              cc:

            	
              Nick
                Zappia

            


    

    Richard
      W. Tribble
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23(b)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of 
Medcross, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-85054, 33-81646, 
33-63749, 33-63751, 33-81652, 333-01525, 333-8477 and 333-8483) of our report
dated April 11, 1997, on our audits of the financial statements of Medcross,
Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996, and for each of the two years in
the period ended December 31, 1996, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB.




COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Salt Lake City, Utah
April 15, 1997
**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**

|   | 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                    Registrant. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                |                                                                                     |                               |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Date:                  May 22, 2006 | By:                                                                            | /s/                  Alain Lemieux |
|                                | Name:                  Alain Lemieux                                                     |
|                                | Title:                  President, Chief Executive Officer,and                  Director |
[No. 15097-6-III.

Division Three.

July 25, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jesus Jose Mendoza, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 95-1-00472-1, Michael W. Leavitt, J., entered August 4, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Munson, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Schul-theis, J.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 305

Commending participants in the Million Mom March.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 11, 2000

Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted the following resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Commending participants in the Million Mom March.

Whereas on Mother’s Day—May 14, 2000—Americans from

all walks of life will unite for the Million Mom March on

the National Mall in Washington, DC and in communities across the country to call for meaningful, common

sense gun policy, and these families, citizens, members of

religious congregations, schools, community-based organizations, businesses, and political and cultural groups will

join together as a local and national community to recognize the violence committed against our children from

guns;

Whereas 4,223 young people ages 19 and under were killed

by gunfire—one every two hours, nearly 12 young people

every day—in the United States in 1997;
2

SRES 305 IS

Whereas American children under 15 are 12 times more likely to die from gunfire than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined;

Whereas the one year Anniversary of the Columbine High

School tragedy passed on April 20, 2000, without any action by Congress on the reasonable gun safety measures

that were sent to a House-Senate conference more than

nine months ago; and

Whereas protecting our children from gun violence is a top

priority for our families, communities, and Nation: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) the organizers, sponsors, and participants of

3 the Million Mom March shall be welcomed to Wash4 ington and commended for rallying their commu5 nities to demand sensible gun safety legislation; and

6 (2) Congress should pass a conference report to

7 accompany H.R. 1501, the Violent and Repeat Juve8 nile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act

9 before the Memorial Day Recess, which includes the

10 Lautenberg-Kerrey gun show loophole amendment

11 and the other Senate-passed provisions designed to

12 limit access to firearms by juveniles, convicted fel13 ons, and other persons prohibited by law from pur14 chasing or possessing firearms.

Æ
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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, Francis M. Colalucci, Chief Financial Officer
of Tower Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


    /s/ Francis M. Colalucci

    Francis M. Colalucci
    Chief Financial Officer
    November 15, 2004