alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6393

JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BILL HEDRICK, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-661-AM) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* DeBardeleben’s conviction became final in 1990, and he did not file his initial § 2254 petition until April 29, 1997 -- more than one year after the date the conviction became final and more than one year after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. 2 PER CURIAM: James M. DeBardeleben appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) of the court’s order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny DeBardeleben’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis , deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal, although on the alternative ground that DeBardeleben’s initial petition was filed outside the one-year limitations period imposed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). * DeBardeleben’s motions “to disqualify Judges Russell, Phillips, and Murnaghan,” “for hearing of appeal on original record without appendix,” and “to waive 50 page brief limit” are denied as moot. DeBardeleben’s motions “for decision by unbiased judge due to Clerk Connor’s harassment” and “for ClerkConnor to acknowledge pleadings and terminate conspiracy to sabotage appeal” are denied as baseless. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in3the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
From: Tom Osborn [tgtcosborn@comcast.net]

Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:24 AM

To: Hancy, Cindy Wang; "'dwreeves@rti.org.'"

Cc: fairchild.susan@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Residual Risk Inquiry- Fibertek

Attachments: Wool Fiberglass Modeling Sources by Co 6 7 11 - FiberTEK.xlsx

Attached is the spreadsheet with the information you requested. Please note that the aerial view is 

attached to the spreadsheet. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Regards,

Tom Osborn

863-899-1239 Cell

863-682-4448 Office
##### 



EXHIBIT 3.1
 CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
XCORPOREAL, INC.*
    Capital Stock
 Authorized Capital Stock
 Preferred Stock
 Common Stock
 Voting Rights
 1




---



##### 



Dividends
 Liquidation; Dissolution
 Board of Directors
 Management
 Term of Office
 Removal
 Vacancies
 No Written Ballot
 Amendment of Bylaws
 2




---



##### 



Special Meetings of Stockholders
 Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation
 Indemnification; Limitation of Liability
  Name:
    
    Mailing Address:John C. Kirkland
    
    Greenberg Traurig, LLP2450 Colorado Ave., Ste. 400ESanta Monica, CA 90404
  /s/ John C. KirklandJohn C. Kirkland, Sole Incorporator
 
 *
    
    As amended; originally filed as Xcorporeal Merger Corporation. 3
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4612 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4612

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 125 North Main Street in Louisburg, North Carolina, as the ``Warren 
                 E. Massenburg Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2017

 Mr. Holding (for himself, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Meadows, Ms. Foxx, Mr. 
McHenry, Mr. Budd, Mr. Walker, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Price of North Carolina, 
and Mr. Jones) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 125 North Main Street in Louisburg, North Carolina, as the ``Warren 
                 E. Massenburg Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. WARREN E. MASSENBURG POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 125 North Main Street in Louisburg, North Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Warren E. Massenburg Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Warren E. 
Massenburg Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 7, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00425

- CR

Jose Alfredo ESCAMILLA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1996CR1275

Honorable Ray Olivarri , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on August 7, 2019.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of August, 2019

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Tiao-Tsan Lai and Yun-Yi Tseng hereby jointly certify as
follows:

     (a)  They are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer,
          respectively, of City Network, Inc. (the "Company");

     (b)  To the best of their knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
          10-QSB/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") complies
          in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (c)  To the best of their knowledge, based upon a review of the Report, the
          information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company for the period certified.


Date: January 27, 2006                      By: /s/ Tiao-Tsan Lai
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Tiao-Tsan Lai
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                (Principal Executive Officer)



Date: January 27, 2006                      By: /s/ Yun-Yi Tseng
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Yun-Yi Tseng
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                (Principal Financial Officer)
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 6 -00 728 -CR
Ar ta vis Edwar ds , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee FR OM T HE C OU N T Y C OU R T A T L A W N O. 5 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NO. 7450 61 , HO NORAB LE NANCY WRI GHT H OH ENGARTEN , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Ar tavis Ed wa rd s se e ks to a

pp e a l a jud g me nt o f c onvic tio n f or dr ivi ngwhile intox icated. T he trial c ourt has ce rtified that this is a plea barg ain case and Edwar ds has no right of appea l. SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2). The appea l is dism issed. Se eid . rule 25.2(d) .

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

8, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
#### Clyde G. HUNTLEY, Collector of Internal Revenue of the United States for the District of Oregon, v. J. R. DODSON. SAME v. J. A. ZEHNTBAUER. SAME v. C. C. JANTZEN.

Nos. 9347-9349.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1939.

*1001Carl C. Donaugh, U. S. Atty., and J. Mason Dillard, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Portland, Or., for appellant.

G. G. Smith, of Portland, Or., for appellee.

Before WILBUR, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon motion of appellant, and stipulation of counsel for respective parties, in each cause, ordered appeal in each cause dismissed, that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and that the mandate of this court in this cause issue forthwith.
#### City of Cincinnati, Appellee, *v.*Kellogg, City Mgr., et al., Appellees; Shannon, a Taxpayer, Appellant.

(No. 31926

Decided March 29, 1950.)

*292
      *Mr. Henry M. Bruestle,*city solicitor, and *Mr. Robert J. White,*for appellee city of Cincinnati.

*Mr. Maurice W. Jacobs*and *Mr. J. B. Crouse, Jr.,*for appellee city manager, director of public utilities, acting city auditor and city treasurer.

*Messrs. Taft, Stettinius & Hollister,*for appellee Cincinnati Street Railway Company.

*Mr. David L. Shannon, in propria persona.*

Weygandt, C. J.

In the instant case the Court of Appeals held that the trial court was not in error in refusing to permit the taxpayer to become a party. Was this correct?

Counsel on each side cite the case of *City of Middletown*v. *City Commission of Middletown,*138 Ohio St., 596, 37 N. E. (2d), 609. In the first paragraph of the syllabus in that case a ma jority of this court held:

> “Where the solicitor of a municipal corporation has instituted a suit for injunction under Section 4311, *293General Code, at the request of a taxpayer, and the court finds that such solicitor is not proceeding in good faith or with due diligence, the court has the inherent power to allow interested taxpayers to become intervening parties to the action, who thereupon have the same rights to plead, participate in the proceedings and appeal as if they had been original parties.”

Obviously the contrasting feature in that case is the finding of the trial court that the city solicitor was *not*proceeding in good faith or with due diligence. In the instant case the trial court found, on the contrary, that the city solicitor “is proceeding in good faith and with due diligence.”

Hence, in the instant case the lower courts were not in error unless a taxpayer enjoys an unqualified *right*to intervene and become a party in an action instituted at his request under favor of Section 4311, General Code. This court has not so held in the *Middletown case, supra,*and does not now so hold.

The taxpayer availed himself of the privilege conferred by the provisions of Section 4314, General Code. He made a request of the city solicitor who responded by complying with the request and instituting the desired suit. That the suit was not successful is, of course, no evidence that the solicitor did not proceed in good faith and with due diligence. Had the trial court found that the solicitor was not so proceeding, it could, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, have permitted the taxpayer to become a party. But the taxpayer was not entitled to be made a party as a matter of right. Furthermore, the record discloses that the Court of Common Pleas instructed the taxpayer to be present at the hearing. He did attend, and the court invited him to participate in the presentation of the case. This invitation was accepted, and the taxpayer expressed his views at length.

*294Under the circumstances the Court of Appeals was not in error, and the judgment must he affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taut, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

s0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146200

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146200

COA: 298749

Kent CC: 08

- 012557

- FC

JOSE ALBERTO VEGA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 25, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4960 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4960

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 511 East Walnut Street in Columbia, Missouri, as the ``Spc. Sterling 
                 William Wyatt Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SPC. STERLING WILLIAM WYATT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 511 East Walnut Street in Columbia, Missouri, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Spc. Sterling William Wyatt Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Spc. 
Sterling William Wyatt Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 16, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4960

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 511 East Walnut Street in Columbia, Missouri, as the ``Spc. Sterling 
                 William Wyatt Post Office Building''.
```
Program 

Lori Swid

National Veterinary Services Laboratories 

The National Veterinary Services Laboratories is responsible for safeguarding U.S.an imal 

health and contributing to public health by ensuring that timely and accurate laboratory 

support is provided by a nationwide animal health diagnostic system. 

NVSL Director 

Suelee Robbe-Austerman 

Diagnostic Virology 

Laboratory 

Director 

Mia Torchetti 

Foreign Animal Disease 

Diagnostic Laboratory 

Director 

Robin Holland 

Diagnostic Bacteriology & 

Pathology Laboratory 

Director 

Kim Lehman 

Diagnostic Bioanalytical & 

Reagent Laboratory 

Director 

Vacant (v. Murphy) 

Associate Director 

Karthik Shanmuganatham 

Na

L

Program Su

Sha

Scientific Advisor 

Randall Levings 

Computational Biology and 

Informatics 

Michael Jondle 

VMO Core 

Vacant (v. Lehman) 

Assistant Director 

Vacant 

Managem

Nikk

Program 

Jared 

Managem

Stac

Program 

Lori S

Program 

Sara
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,582
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,017
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    100,468
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         100,468
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           100,468
<LOANS>                                        281,120
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 469,659
<DEPOSITS>                                     288,714
<SHORT-TERM>                                    38,477
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,705
<LONG-TERM>                                     91,042
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,496
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 469,659
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 23,547
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,751
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                34,298
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,163
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,814
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,484
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      480
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  68
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,451
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,635
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,635
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,130
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.14
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,206
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,425
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,329
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      176
<RECOVERIES>                                        15
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,648
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,648


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
                                                                                
                  SHEFFIELD STEEL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                        
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         (In thousands, except ratios)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Years Ended April 30,
                                             --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1994           1995            1996           1997           1998
                                             -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------  -------------
<S>                                          <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>            <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
    Interest on long-term debt                    $ 7,384         $10,127        $11,758        $11,769         $12,300
    Amortization of debt issue costs                  422             474            476            368             383
                                                  -------         -------        -------        -------         -------
 
          Total fixed charges                     $ 7,806         $10,601        $12,234        $12,137         $12,683
                                                  =======         =======        =======        =======         =======
 
Earnings, as defined:
    Income (loss) before income taxes
      and extraordinary item                      $(2,353)        $ 2,022        $(3,091)       $(3,509)        $ 1,302
 
    Fixed charges (as shown above)                  7,806          10,601         12,234         12,137          12,683
                                                  -------         -------        -------        -------         -------
 
          Earnings available for fixed            $ 5,453         $12,623        $ 9,143        $ 8,628         $13,985
           charges                                =======         =======        =======        =======         =======
 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   .70x           1.19x           .75x           .71x           1.10x
                                                  =======         =======        =======        =======         =======
</TABLE>