alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2299

WAYNE BROWNING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-99-597-3) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Browning, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Browning appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Browning v. West Virginia , No. CA-99-597-3 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 10, 1999). 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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11251 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERNEST LEE HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-84-A-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 2, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ernest Lee Howard has appealed his conviction and sentence for controlled substance and firearms violations. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. After DaJuan Pratt, a fifteen-year-old employee at a “weed house” maintained by Howard and codefendant Alfred Brooks, mistakenly shot and fatally wounded a seven-year-old boy with a firearm supplied by Howard, Pratt hid the weapon under a mattress at Howard’s nearby residence. Later that day, Pratt authorizedNo. 98-11251 -2- the investigating officer to enter the residence and retrieve the weapon. The district court denied Howard’s motion to suppress the firearm. We find no error, clear or otherwise, in the district court’s finding that DaJuan Pratt had apparent authority to authorize authorities to enter Howard’s dwelling to retrieve the firearm. United States v. Gonzales , 121 F.3d 928, 938 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 726, 1804 (1998). We likewise reject Howard’s suggestion that Pratt’s consent to the search was involuntary due to his age and custodial status. United States v. Kelley , 981 F.2d 1464, 1470 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Hermosillo , 142 F.3d 1225, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). The record supports the district court’s finding that Howard acted with malice aforethought when he supplied a teenager with a weapon and instructed him to use it if someone came in the back door. Thus, the district court correctly applied the sentencing guidelines for second degree murder to determine Howard’s base offense level. United States v. Branch , 91 F.3d 699, 711, 734 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 520 U.S. 1185 (1997); United States v. Gonzales , 996 F.2d 88, 89-92 (5th Cir. 1993); see U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(B). While Howard waited nearby in a car, his codefendant, Brooks, threatened a witness not to reveal his and Howard’s names to the police. Howard challenges the district court’s determination that Howard had obstructed justice because the intimidation of the witness was jointly undertaken by both HowardNo. 98-11251 -3- and Brooks. We find no error in the enhancement of Howard’s sentence for obstruction of justice. United States v. Ismoila , 100 F.3d 380, 397 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 520 U.S. 1219, 1247 (1997). AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**     The undersigned, as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AlliedHoldings, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 which accompanies this certification fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Allied Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. Theforegoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.     This23rd of May 2007.         */s/ Thomas H. King*         *Thomas H. King*    *Executive Vice President and*
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00088]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / 
Notices

[[Page 899]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-41-2023]


Foreign-Trade Zone 277--Western Maricopa County, Arizona; 
Withdrawal of Application for Expansion (New Magnet Site) Under 
Alternative Site Framework

    Notice is hereby given of the withdrawal of the application 
submitted by the Greater Maricopa Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of 
FTZ 277, requesting authority to expand its zone under the alternative 
site framework to include a new magnet site in El Mirage, Arizona. The 
application was docketed on June 26, 2023 (88 FR 42290, June 30, 2023). 
The withdrawal was requested by the grantee on January 2, 2024, 
following notification pursuant to 15 CFR 400.33(e)(1) of the 
examiner's preliminary recommendation not to approve the application.

    Dated: January 2, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-00088 Filed 1-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT 32

  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Aura Systems, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (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 Company.

Date: August 15, 2005                            /s/ Dennis Calvert
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Dennis Calvert
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 15, 2005                            /s/ Dennis Calvert
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Dennis Calvert
                                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer



                                       27
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. GRIMM:
       H.R. 6441.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
```
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 IVI Communications, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kurt
Jensen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




February
20, 2009






/s/ Kurt
      JensenKurt
      JensenChief
      Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal Financial
      Officer and Principal Executive
Officer)
United floorplanFigure 1: Floorplan

### Details of fwd lounge

There is only one area where the conditions called out for firm handhold can not be completely met This area is the forward lounge (see below, Figure 2).

Figure 2

Explanation of Figure 2: There are two red lines shown in the figure.

The inboard line indicates the center of the 65" circle. The outboard line indicates the upper end of valance panel which is installed throughout the whole cabin. The upper end of the valance panel provides firm handhold and has a height of appr. 1613 mm [~63,5"] and a distance from the inner side of the fuselage of appr. 409 mm [~16,1"]; (please see below, Figure 3).Figure 3

For a 5%ile female it might be hard to reach the firm handhold while standing next to the fold-out table. The 5%ile female has to bend slightly out board to grap the upper end of the valance panel (the firm handhold device). Persons with the height of a 5%ile female should also be able to steady themselves on interior components with a height less t han 33" (e.g. table on left hand side) and persons larger than a 5%ile female are able to grap the firm handhold with less bending. Persons with the height of a 95% ile male will not have any problems to reach the firm handhold device at all.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM
– Schwarzbräu (ALASKA)**

**(Case T-225/08)**

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark ALASKA – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 37, 39)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 877/2004‐4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH and Schwarzbräu GmbH. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: | The figurative mark ALASKA for goods in Class 32 – Community trade mark No 505552 |
| Proprietor of the Community trade mark: | Schwarzbräu GmbH |
| Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: | Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH |
| Decision of the Cancellation Division: | Rejection of the application for the declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Schwarzbräu GmbH to bear its own costs. |
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-80081, 333-33130, 333-47388, 333-70620, 333-98135, 333-108345, 333-152164 and 333-160815) of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.of our report dated March 16, 2009 relating to the financial statements of Advanced Chip Engineering Technology Inc., which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Taipei, Taiwan

Republic of China 

March 16,2010
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 Reed’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher J.
Reed, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.







Dated:   
November 13, 2009





/s/ Christopher J.
Reed


Christopher
J. Reed


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)








A signed
original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling) come 
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mr. SCHILLING led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________
```
ICRAS 1404 1845-0023 v6 – Affected Public – Individuals 2/7/2013

This request is for the extension of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of 

the reporting and recordkeeping requirement contained in 34 CFR sections 674.39, 674.41, 

674.42, 674.43, 674.45, 674.47, 674.48, and 674.49 under the control number 1845-0023. The 

information collections in these regulations are necessary to determine Federal Perkins Loan 

Program borrower eligibility to receive program benefits and to prevent fraud and abuse of 

program funds. 

Section 674.39 – Loan rehabilitation.

This section establishes that participating institutions are required to have a loan rehabilitation 

program for the purposes of rehabilitating defaulted loans and outlines the requirements of the 

rehabilitation program.

485,482 X .016666 hours = 8,091 hours

Section 674.41 – Due diligence – general requirements.

This section establishes that institutions are required to inform the borrower on a timely basis 

and exercise due diligence in the collection of Perkins loans. Additionally, institutions are 

required to coordinate among the various campus administrative offices to share information as it 

relates to a borrower and the billing and collection process.

2,070,514 X .016666 hours = 34,507 hours

Section 674.42 – Contact with the borrower.

This section establishes that institutions are required to provide borrowers with information 

about the repayment of the loan, a description of charges, an explanation of loan consolidation or 

other refinancing as well as other information about the amount of the repayment, the frequency, 

and to whom the payments must be made. Generally, this information is provided to the 

borrowers as a part of the required exit interview process. The institution is required to maintain 

information substantiating the institution’s compliance with these due diligence regulations.

2,070,514 X .016666 hours = 34,507 hours

Section 674.43 – Billing procedures.

This section establishes that institutions are required to notify borrowers about the amount of 

repayment due, to remind borrowers when their payment is overdue, and to demand payment of 

overdue amounts.

2,555,996 X .016666 hours = 42,598 hours
ICRAS 1404 1845-0023 v6 – Affected Public – Individuals 2/7/2013

Section 674.45 – Collection procedures.

This section establishes that borrowers who do not respond satisfactorily to demand notices for 

repayment of defaulted loans must be referred for intensive collection efforts. Those efforts 

include reporting defaults to a national credit bureau, either the use of institutional resources to 

collect of the use of a collection agency, and ultimately, litigation to resolve the debt.

242,741 X .016666 hours = 4,046 hours

Section 674.47 – Costs chargeable to the Fund.

This section establishes detail about the billing costs, late charge costs, other collections costs, as 

well as write-offs and waivers of collection costs and the limitations of those costs that can be 

charged to the Perkins fund.

242,741 X .016666 hours = 4,046 hours

TOTALS

Responses 7,667,988

Respondents 7,667,988

Burden Hours 127,795
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-81346) of our
reports dated February 7, 1997 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of Philadelphia Consolidated
Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for each of
the three years in the period ended December 31, 1996, which report is
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
----------------------------
2400 Eleven Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 26, 1997
#### Inez Hereford BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 11333.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Aug. 1, 1939.

Forest P. Tralles and Fred J. Hoffmeister, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Harry C. Blanton, U. S. Atty., of Sikeston, Mo., Herbert H. Freer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St Louis, Mo., James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Andrew D. Sharpe and Leon F. Cooper, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen.

PER CURTAM.

Appeal, 21 F.Supp. 214, dismissed at cost of appellant, per stipulation of party.
M14002 Chemical Identity



## CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
#### HAYWARD FARMS COMPANY, a Corporation of Lakefiold, Minnesota, Appellant, v. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 11463.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 23, 1939.

Nels Quevli, of Lakefield, Minn., for appellant.

Meighen, Knudson & Sturtz, of Albert Lea, Minn., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal docketed and dismissed without costs to either party in this court, per stipulation of parties.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

(f'.mu make changes to the values in the tahle he!olt'

. youl/wst ensure 1he 101a/s update**cording~v .**  (f 1/ie y do not. dick (or Tab) into and !hen oul ollhe changed ce ll.
Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### See SB 727- 9.75 $18,000 

### 98 57A0135R4

The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,845,218 Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs: 

# 0 Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour)

replacement) testing, and closeup)**~fDialM\ (tl.bSh~/5/•dH(** **?-'!:/.Ct(J. ...,_i\Y.Zs.J~5-:.I·** **· ~**  \Zti

.odf<J.,ou**~3** 

## . v"/r ub**s~** 

### r;o ()**ilvr-~:** 

### I s\;Jtr 

### 2**n-t'o<.~;-,;o~** ,1 

### f.,

. ,. 

# e '.!>**"'"C..tA.e~** -pu'**~** 11**~** <,..)
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

### The labor hours shows an estimate ofthe task hours necessary to do this for each airplane by an experienced crew. The estimate does not include lost time.like:Time to adjust to the workplace , Time to schedule the work,Time to inspect the work, Time to find the tools. Also this estimate does not include the man-hour data for work done for the supplemental service bulletins: 727-57-0059,727-57-0072 or 727-27-0133

. 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory action " ? 

# G YES* 

## D NO[gj *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? 

# G YES* 

## D NO 

### [81 *Explanation : 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. 

# G YES 

## D NO 

### [81 Explanation : 

### It is routine improvement program for which the improved parts were already introduced 

### as an option by the existing 

### AD to terminate the reocurring inspections 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska

. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 

# G YES* 

## D NO 

### [81 *Explanation: