alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Venson Leon COWARD, a/k/a Lord Versatile, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7427.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.

Decided Feb. 5, 2003.

Venson Leon Coward, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

*209Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Venson Leon Coward, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), challenging his 1986 convictions for murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. A petitioner may not appeal from the denial of relief on his § 2254 petition unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). Coward’s petition was filed in April 2002, several years after the statutory limitations period expired for convictions that became final prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (2000); *Brown v. Angelone,*150 F.3d 370, 374-76 (4th Cir.1998). Because the petition was not timely filed, Coward cannot meet the criteria for a certificate of appealability. 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.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell Lamont WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4490.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 23, 2003.

Decided Feb. 3, 2003.

*191Michael S. Seekings, Mullen, Wylie & Seekings, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Lamont Williams appeals from his conviction and 240-month sentence pursuant to a guilty plea to the charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846 (2000).

Williams’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he raises the issue of whether the district court correctly applied the Sentencing Guidelines. The mandatory statutory minimum for conspiracy to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base is twenty years. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(iii) (2000). Therefore, the district court did not err by sentencing Williams to a term of 240 months.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Williams’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

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.*
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)
 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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the
Company.
 /s/ Willem M. SmitWillem M. SmitChief Executive OfficerPresident and Director
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1749

To amend title 38, sections 8101(2) and 8109(h)(3)(B), United States Code,

to delete the references therein to ‘‘working drawings’’ and substitute

therefor the words ‘‘construction documents,’’ and to further delete the

references therein to ‘‘preliminary plans’’ and to substitute therefor the

words ‘‘design development.’’

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 13, 1996

Mr. SIMPSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, sections 8101(2) and 8109(h)(3)(B),

United States Code, to delete the references therein to

‘‘working drawings’’ and substitute therefor the words

‘‘construction documents,’’ and to further delete the references therein to ‘‘preliminary plans’’ and to substitute

therefor the words ‘‘design development.’’

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 8101(2) and section 8109(h)(3)(B) of title

4 38, United States Code, are amended—
2

S 1749 IS

1 SEC. 2. By striking the words ‘‘working drawings’’

2 each time they appear and to substitute therefor in each

3 instance the words ‘‘construction documents.’’

4 SEC. 3. By striking the words ‘‘preliminary plans’’

5 each time they appear to substitute therefor in each in6 stance the words ‘‘design development.’’

Æ
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




The
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




This
14th
day of August, 2009.


/s/
      Stephen D. BarnhillStephen
      D. Barnhill, M.D.Chief
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1479

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to

improve control of acid mine drainage, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 14, 1995

Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

of 1977 to improve control of acid mine drainage, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Acid Mine Drainage

5 Abatement Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. ACID MINE DRAINAGE.

7 Section 402(g) of the Surface Mining Control and

8 Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)) is amend9 ed—
2

•S 1479 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (6)—

2 (A) by striking ‘‘either’’ and all that fol3 lows through ‘‘trust fund’’ and inserting ‘‘a spe4 cial trust fund’’; and

5 (B) by striking ‘‘1995,’’ and all that fol6 lows through the end of the paragraph and in7 serting ‘‘1995.’’; and

8 (2) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the

9 following:

10 ‘‘(7)(A) Any State may receive and retain, without

11 regard to the 3-year limitation referred to in paragraph

12 (1)(D), amounts up to the greater of $1,000,000 or 30

13 percent of the total of the grants made annually to the

14 State under this subsection if the amounts are deposited

15 in an acid mine drainage abatement and treatment fund

16 established under State law under which the amounts (to17 gether with all interest earned on the amounts) are ex18 pended by the State to undertake acid mine drainage

19 abatement and treatment projects.

20 ‘‘(B) A project that is funded out of an acid mine

21 drainage abatement and treatment fund under subpara22 graph (A) shall provide for the abatement of the causes

23 of the treatment of the effects of acid mine drainage from

24 lands and waters that are eligible under section 404.’’.

Æ
**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

 

Theundersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of GladstoneCapital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies on the date hereof,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of TheSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended December 31, 2007 (“Form 10-Q”), filed concurrentlyherewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andthat the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

Dated:  February 5, 2008

 

 
| /s/ David Gladstone     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| David Gladstone         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          19,910
<SECURITIES>                                    17,235
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,328
<INVENTORY>                                      6,295
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,898
<PP&E>                                          11,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,429
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               12
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,618
<SALES>                                         61,604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,604
<CGS>                                           32,250
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,328
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1,040)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,268
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,433)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,701
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,701
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
February 7, 2014

David Webster, Chief

Water Permits Branch 

U.S. EPA Region 1 (OEP06-1)

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100

Boston, MA 02109-3912

RE: CZM Federal Consistency Review of NPDES General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (Multi-Sector General Permit); Statewide.

Dear Mr. Webster:

The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) has completed its review of 

the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MultiSector General Permit).

Based upon our review of applicable information, we concur with your certification and find 

that the activity as proposed is consistent with the CZM enforceable program policies.

If the above-referenced permit is modified in any manner, including any changes resulting 

from permit, license or certification revisions, including those ensuing from an appeal, or the project 

is noted to be having effects on coastal resources or uses that are different than originally proposed, 

it is incumbent upon the proponent to notify CZM, submit an explanation of the nature of the 

change pursuant to 15 CFR 930, and submit any modified state permits, licenses, or certifications. 

CZM will use this information to determine if further federal consistency review is required.

Thank you for your cooperation with CZM.

Sincerely, 

Bruce K. Carlisle

Director

CZM#13639

cc:

Todd Callaghan, CZM

David Ferris, MassDEP Boston

Thelma Murphy, EPA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

In re the Complaintof
THE FLIGHT SHOP, INC. D/B/A PROFESSIONAL AIR,

and AERO FACILITIES, LLC Complainants, against CITY OF BEND, OREGON-MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Respondent. Pursuant to Part 16 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations

ERRATA ORDER Docket No. 16-14-12

On February 11, Complainants THE FLIGHT SHOP, INC. D/B/A PROFESSIONAL AIR, and AERO FACILITIES, LLC pursuant to 14 CFR §16.11, filed an unopposed motion seeking an extension oftime until March 9, in which to file theirresponsive Reply to the Respondent's Answer and its opposition to Respondent's Motionto Dismiss and for SummaryJudgment. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Complainants Unopposed Motion for an Extension ofTime is Granted. Complainants may file their Reply on or before March 9, 2015. Respondent is also granted a 20 days extension in which to file its rebuttal, i.e., the rebuttal is due within 30 days ofthe date ofservice ofthe complainants' reply.

Randall S. Fiertz Director ofOffice ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFYthat on/1

## htch Z7 , 2015, I caused to be placed in theUnited States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe FAA's Request for Additional Information and Notice ofExtension ofTime, addressed to: Mr. Pablo Niiesch, Attorney for City ofBend Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 1875 Eye Street, NW Suite 700 Washlngton, DC 20006 Mr. Robert Franz, Jr., Attorney for City ofBend Law Office ofRobert E. Franz Jr. 730 B St Springfield, OR 97477 Gary Firestone, City Attorney City ofBend City Hall, 710 NW Wall Street P.O. Box 431 Bend, OR 97709 Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. McBreen & Kopko Attorneys for Complainants 500 North Broadway Jericho, New York 11753 lkirsch@mklawnyc.com Copyto: FAA Part 16 Proceedings Docket Office ofAirport Compliance, AC0-100

laudm Roberts • .. Office ofAirport Compliance and

Management Analysis 

### 2
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
              /s/  Gary H. HuntGary H. HuntInterim Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1754 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1754

   To designate the United States Courthouse at 235 North Washington 
  Avenue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, as the ``William J. Nealon United 
                          States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 14, 1996

  Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Santorum) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the United States Courthouse at 235 North Washington 
  Avenue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, as the ``William J. Nealon United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Courthouse at 235 North Washington Avenue in 
Scranton, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the ``William 
J. Nealon United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William J. Nealon 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     /s/ NATHAN W. FRANKENathan W. FrankeChief Financial Officer andExecutive Vice President
Exhibit 32.1

Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
of Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2009 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Report), we, Jack W. Gibson, Chief Executive Officer, and Neal A. Petrovich,
Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Jack W. GibsonJack W. GibsonChief Executive OfficerDate: May 11, 2009/s/ Neal A. PetrovichNeal A. PetrovichChief Financial OfficerDate: May 11, 2009




32
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM














We have
issued our report dated March 14, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial
statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Century Casinos, Inc.
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.  We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements
of Century Casinos, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-132510, effective
March 17, 2006 and File No. 333-13801, effective October 9,
1996).











Denver,
Colorado


March 14,
2008
#### In the Matter of STEVE D. THOMPSON TRUCKING, INC., Debtor. Billy R. VINING, Trustee, Appellee, v. ROCK WOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 92-4160.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 10, 1993.

Covert J. Geary and Raymond J. Salassi, Jr., Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, LA, for appellant.

Richard A. Bailly and Stephen J. Katz, Rankin, Yeldell, Herring & Katz, P.C., Bas-trop, LA, for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, Rock Wool Manufacturing Company (“Rock Wool”), moves for a rehearing on the ground that there still exists a genuine issue of material fact regarding the *284applicability of a discount tariff. We have previously reversed the summary judgment against petitioner on procedural grounds; however, the lower court’s calculation of undercharges was left intact. The underlying l'ates used to determine the amount of undercharges form the basis of Rock Wool’s petition. The lower court calculated the undercharges by the difference between the rate charged and the filed tariff rate without the benefit of any discount. Rock Wool had argued that it was engaged in contract carriage and, thus, was entitled to a 55% discount. We properly rejected Rock Wool’s contract of carriage argument.

However, Rock Wool asserted a fall-back position contending that if the 55% contract of carriage discount does not apply, then a 40% discount was in effect. The sole basis of this argument emanates from a participation letter (“the letter”) signed by Steve D. Thompson Inc.’s director of traffic, Marion Jackson. The letter, which accompanied Mr. Falk’s affidavit, purports to establish a 40% discount. However, there is no evidence in the record that a valid tariff with a 40% discount was ever filed with the ICC.

Additionally, the district court considered Mr. Falk’s affidavit and posited it against Mr. Charles E. Shinn’s affidavit and the trustee’s affidavit. The court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact. Surely, that determination was based on the fact that the record is barren with regard to a valid filed 40% discount. We too find that there is no evidence in the record to suggest that a 40% discount tariff was ever filed with the ICC. Consequently, petitioner’s motion for rehearing is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1480 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1480

   To provide for the comparable treatment of Federal employees and 
Members of Congress and the President during a period in which there is 
                     a Federal Government shutdown.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 14, 1995

Mrs. Boxer (for herself and Mr. Harkin) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for the comparable treatment of Federal employees and 
Members of Congress and the President during a period in which there is 
                     a Federal Government shutdown.

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

SECTION 1. PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT DURING 
              GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS.

    (a) Comparable Pay Treatment for Members of Congress.--The basic 
pay of Members of Congress shall be treated in the same manner as the 
basic pay of the most adversely affected Federal employees who are not 
compensated for any period in which--
            (1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations 
        for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure 
        to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing 
        resolution; or
            (2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or 
        meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 
        3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.
    (b) Authority To Promulgate Regulations.--The Secretary of the 
Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
Representatives shall promulgate any regulations needed to implement 
this section in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United 
States.
    (c) Comparable Pay Treatment for the President of the United 
States.--The basic pay of the President of the United States shall be 
treated in the same manner as the pay of Members of Congress described 
in subsection (a).
    (d) Severability.--If any provision of this section is held invalid 
by any Federal court, the remaining provisions shall remain valid.
                                 <all>
```