alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6937

ALEXANDER JIGGETTS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. BALTIMORE COUNTY SHERIFF; JAY FISHER, Baltimore County Circuit; COUNTY CLERK JULIE ENSOR; BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CHIEF JUDGE, Unknown Name , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv
- 01525

- JFM )

Submitted : November 20, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Alexander Jiggetts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alexander Jiggetts appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Jiggetts v. Balt. Cty. Sheriff , No. 1:17

- cv
- 01525

- JFM (D. Md. June 30, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court an d argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23.4
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDIT FIRM
 
  /s/ KMJ CORBIN & COMPANY LLP
KMJ CORBIN & COMPANY LLP
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert R. KRILICH, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-1445.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Jan. 27, 2003.

Before EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

Order

Defendant-appellant filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on January 14, 2003. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc,* and all of the judges on the panel have voted to deny rehearing. The petition for rehearing is therefore DENIED.

*

 Judge Flaum did not participate in the consideration of the matter.
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 the Annual Report of Trimol Group Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.

                                                     /s/ Jack Braverman
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Jack Braverman
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     TRIMOL GROUP, INC.

April 14, 2004


                                       51
From: Hustvedt.Ken@epamail.epa.gov [ma ilto:Hustvedt.Ken@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 5:16 PM
To: jpeterson@environmentalintegrity.org; escheaffer@environmentalintegrity.org
Cc: Coburn, Jeff B.; Parrish, Kristin; Lucas.B ob@epamail.epa.gov; Shine.Br enda@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Fw: NOx turndown information

here are the data that we have. one is our memo and the other is included in industry comments.

glad we were finally able to get together

take care, kc hustvedt

----- Forwarded by Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/ 10/2009 05:09 PM -----

From: Brenda Shine/RTP/USEPA/US
To: Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Lucas/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 07/10/2009 04:26 PM Subject: NOx turndown information

Here are 2 relevant items already in the Ja docket . The Marathon data is most applicable.

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-001 1-0290 NOx process heat er data memo.pdf) (See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR -2007-0011-0256 ma rathon data.pdf)

### Note: The files attached to this email are located in the Refinery NSPS docket. The Docket ID Nos. are EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011-0256 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011-0290.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2061

TOMAS CABRERA,

Petitioner,

versus

PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A90-682-311) 

Submitted: July 20, 2007 Decided: October 4, 2007

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aroon Roy Padharia, LAW OFFICE OF AROON R. PADHARIA, Washington,

D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney

General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan

Robbins, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tomas Cabrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) affirming the decision of the immigration judge

denying a motion to reconsider a final order of removal. We have

reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion

in the Board’s affirmance of the immigration judge’s order. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2) (2007); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481,

482-83 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In Re: Cabrera,

No. A90-682-311 (B.I.A. Sept. 12, 2006). 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.

PETITION DENIED
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41063 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN JOSE ROBLES-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-78-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Jose Robles-Rodriguez (Robles) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after deportation. Robles argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. Robles’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Robles contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overruleNo. 05-41063 -2- Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Robles properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT GRAY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3766

____________ _________________/

Opinion filed January 5, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Wesley R. Douglas , Judge

.

Andy Thomas , Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pa mela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 32





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 amended quarterly report of microHelix, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tyram H. Pettit, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Vice PresidentFinance 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




****Date: February 6, 2005

/s/ Tyram H. PettitTyram H. PettitPresident, Chief Executive Officer, and Vice President  Finance(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)20
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Brian Thomas Spinks v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00176

- CR

Trial court case number: 78734

- CR

Trial court: 300th District Court, Brazoria County, Texas

Date motion filed: May 25 , 201 8

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justice s Jennings

, Massengale, and Caughey

.

Date: July 1 9 , 2018
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 44 minutes 
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, September 21, 2012, 
at 9 a.m.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 5.1
  
 Re:
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-8
      Very truly yours,
STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH
a Professional Corporation/s/ Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome Jewett JOHNSON, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7706.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 14, 2003.

Decided Feb. 10, 2003.

Jerome Jewett Johnson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*675PER CURIAM.

Jerome Jewett Johnson, Sr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. *See United States v. Johnson,*Nos. CR-96-6; CA-02-439-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2002). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT
31.1
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 I, Erwin
Haitzmann, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Century Casinos,
Inc.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;
 
 3.
[INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officers 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 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 us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)
disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 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:
April 27, 2005
 
 
 By:
/s/ Erwin Haitzmann
 Erwin
Haitzmann
 Chairman
and Co-Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
        31
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I,
        Atsushi Maki, certify that:
 
 1.  
         I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Amanasu
        Environment Corporation;
 
 2.  
         Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
        of 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
        quarterly report;
 
 4.  
         I 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 we have:
 
 a)  
         Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
        disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
        ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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 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 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 our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s
        auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons
        performing the equivalent function):
 
 a)  
         All significant deficiencies and material weakness 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 data; and
 
 b)  
         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
        employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls
        over
        financial reporting.
 
 
 Date:
                  November 10, 2005/s/
                  Atsushi MakiAtsushi
                  MakiCEO,
                  CFO, CAO
#### Raul DAVID, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fabian LAVIGNE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-1295.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 2003.

Before SILER, DAUGHTREY, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

This is an appeal from a district court judgment denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l). Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

In 1996, a Michigan state court jury found Raul A. David guilty of possession with intent to deliver at least 650 grams of cocaine and conspiracy to deliver at least 650 grams of cocaine. David filed a § 2254 petition in 2000 in which he challenged his conviction and life sentence on six grounds. The district court denied the relief sought and this appeal followed.

This court reviews a district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error when reviewing a decision regarding a § 2254 petition for a writ of *735habeas corpus. *Harris v. Stovall,*212 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir.2000). An examination of the record and law under this standard supports the district court’s judgment on appeal.

The prosecution presented evidence that a confidential informant (the “Cl”) arranged a purchase of a kilogram of cocaine through Daniel Rodriguez. During the subsequent drug purchase, David appeared and was identified by one of the conspirators as the man who had brought the cocaine. David was thereafter arrested and taken into custody. He made several damaging admissions against himself, that were later used at trial, and the jury found David guilty of the crimes charged. David set forth six grounds for relief in his § 2254 petition. The district court denied the petition in its entirety and certified five of the issues for appeal.

Upon consideration, this court will affirm the judgment on review for the reasons stated in the comprehensive memorandum opinion and order filed in the district court on February 8, 2002.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4984 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4984

 To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
  Policy Act of 1977 to allow for 1890 institutions to carry over an 
increased percentage of extension funding received during the previous 
                              fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2018

   Ms. Adams (for herself, Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Kelly of 
Mississippi, and Mr. Luetkemeyer) introduced the following bill; which 
              was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
  Policy Act of 1977 to allow for 1890 institutions to carry over an 
increased percentage of extension funding received during the previous 
                              fiscal year.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Carryover Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWING 1890 INSTITUTIONS TO CARRY OVER AN INCREASED 
              PERCENTAGE OF EXTENSION FUNDING.

    Paragraph (4) of section 1444(a) of the National Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3221(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``No more than'' and inserting the 
        following: ``For fiscal years ending on or before September 30, 
        2018, no more than''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For 
        fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 2018, the 
        limitation specified in the preceding sentence shall not apply 
        and 100 percent of such funds may be carried forward to the 
        succeeding fiscal year.''.
                                 <all>
```