alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 7208** 

DONEAL J. GILLESPIE ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

ELDER DICE ,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever, III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:15

- ct

- 03083

- D )

Submitted : November 19 , 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER , KING , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Doneal J. Gillespie, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Doneal J. Gillespie appeals the district court ’ s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 A(b) (20 1 2 ). We have reviewed the record and find that
this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
for the reasons stated by the district court. Gillespie v.

Dice , No. 5:15

- ct

- 03083

- D (E.D.N.C. July 21, 2015) . We dispense
with oral argument bec ause the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before th is court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CHEMFAB CORPORATION

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                          SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
                             1991 STOCK OPTION PLAN




     1.   Effective as of May 1, 1997, subsection (c) of Section 6 of the
Corporation's Second Amended and Restated 1991 Stock Option Plan (the "1991
Plan") was deleted in its entirety.

     2.   Effective as of May 1, 1997, the following sentence was inserted
following the last sentence of Section 20 of the 1991 Plan:

          The deletion of Section 6(c), which did not require shareholder
          approval, was approved by the Board of Directors on May 1, 1997.
### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 31 4- CR Pedro S. CONTRERAS , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 226th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-2486W Honora ble Sid L . Har le, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Justi ce

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 18, 2008 DI SMI SSED The trial c ourt’s cer

tification in this appe al states that the c ase “ is one in which the de fenda nt ha s w a ive d th e ri g ht o f a

pp e a l.” Rul e 25 .2 (d ) of the Te xas Rule s of Ap pe llate Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s, “[t] he appe al m ust be dis missed if a ce rtification that shows the de fenda nt has a rig ht of appe al has not been made part of the rec ord under these rule s.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 5. 2( d) . App e lla nt’ s a pp e llate counsel notified this court that a ppellant does not have a right t o appea l in this case. Counsel fur ther04
- 08
- 00 31 4- CR

- 2- indicated that a

ppellant would not file an a mended trial court cer

tification showing that he has the rig ht of appe al. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 2 5. 2( d) ; 37 .1 ; se e als o D an ie ls v . S tate , 110 S.W .3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the rec ord presented, we ag ree with appellant’s
c ouns e l th at Ru le 25 .2 (d ) r e qu ir e s th is c ourt to di sm is s thi s a pp e a l. A c c or din g ly , th is a pp e a l is dismiss ed.

PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11747-11748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02748]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Part 213

[Docket DARS-2024-0001]


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical 
Amendments

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: DoD is amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) to make needed editorial changes.

DATES: Effective February 15, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, Defense 
Acquisition Regulations System, telephone 703-717-8226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends the DFARS to make 
needed editorial changes to add a pointer to DFARS Procedures, 
Guidance, and Information.

[[Page 11748]]

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 213

    Government procurement.

Jennifer D. Johnson,
Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR part 213 is amended as follows:

PART 213--SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 213 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

0
2. Amend section 213.301 by adding paragraph (6) to read as follows:


213.301   Governmentwide commercial purchase card.

* * * * *
    (6) When the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is used as a 
method of payment for contracts or orders, follow the procedures at 
232.7002(a)(5) and PGI 242.302(a)(13)(B)(3).

[FR Doc. 2024-02748 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6227

YO , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. ALISON LAND, Commissioner , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. M. Hannah Lauck , District Judge. ( 3:20

- cv - 00453

- MHL

- MRC )

Submitted : November 28, 2023 Decided: February 21, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Yo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6227 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Yo appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismissing it on that basis. ∗ Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Yo’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 225 4 petition over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae , 793 F.3d at 397

- 400. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003) , abrogated in part on other grounds by McRae , 793 F.3d at 400 & n.7 , we construe Yo’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Yo’s claims do not meet the
relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. 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.
AFFIRMED

∗ A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized , successive habeas petition. United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). USCA4 Appeal: 23-6227 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.5

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT

TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Igor Gonda, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aradigm Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2015; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Igor GondaIgor GondaPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: May 10, 2016
exhibit 99.1







|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 Amended Quarterly report of CareDecision Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), We, Robert Cox, President/CEO, and Keith Berman, Treasurer/CFO, of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.











/s/ Robert Cox

Robert Cox

President/CEO

February 8, 2005











/s/ Keith Berman

Keith Berman

Treasurer/CFO

February 8, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7370

In Re: DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-02-1478-PJM)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 15, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetric Gray Pearson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Demetric Gray Pearson petitions for a writ of mandamus. He

seeks orders requiring the Government to show cause and recusing

the district court. Pearson also raises claims concerning alleged

errors in his state court proceedings. 

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a

clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

Our review of the district court’s docket reveals the

Government filed its response and the district court has ruled;

therefore, this issue is moot. As to the remainder of Pearson’s

arguments, the relief sought by Pearson is not available by way of

mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000725929
<NAME> TELECOMMUNICATION PRODUCTS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     92,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,293
<PP&E>                                          60,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,222
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          698,516
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       733,768
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,342,796)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,293
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,901
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,909
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (52,901)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
FILF COPY

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

fj/SJr \

8/27/2015 COA Case No. 12-14-00005-CR

FINLEY, JOSEPH Tr. Ct. No. 2013-0140 PD-1110-15

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant's Pro Se motion for an extension

of time in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the

petition has been extended to Tuesday, October 20, 2015. NO FURTHER

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary

Review must be filed with The Court of Criminal Appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7147

HAROLD SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 03-7608

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HAROLD SMITH, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-02-2456-13AK; CA-02-2456)

Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
- 2 -

No. 03-7147, dismissed; No. 03-7608, affirmed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Harold Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Harold Smith, Jr., appeals

the district court’s orders denying his motion for a certificate of

appealability (No. 03-7147) and his motion for a copy of records at

the government’s expense (No. 03-7608). As to No. 03-7147, 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude

Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, in No. 03-

7147, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. As to No. 03-7608, we have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, in No. 03-7608, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. United States,

No. CA-02-2456 (D.S.C. Sept. 3, 2003). While we grant Smith leave

to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 03-7608, we deny his motions

for appointment of counsel and for abeyance in No. 03-7147. We

also deny his motion to stay these appeals, his motion for

injunctive relief, and his motion to consolidate these appeals with
- 4 -

two other cases. 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.

No. 03-7147, DISMISSED

No. 03-7608, AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THERMO BIOANALYSIS CORPORATION'S
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 1,2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                                 37,621
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          69,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                            5,386
<INVENTORY>                                            43,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      183,129
<PP&E>                                                 41,655
<DEPRECIATION>                                         15,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        414,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 128,099
<BONDS>                                                18,452
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  212
<OTHER-SE>                                            267,205
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          414,001
<SALES>                                               290,582
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      290,582
<CGS>                                                 135,788
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         135,788
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       24,241
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        1,408
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      5,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        30,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                           11,237
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    19,212
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           19,212
<EPS-BASIC>                                            1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.99


</TABLE>
ALD-162 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1674

___________

In re: KRIM M. BALLENTINE,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

District Court of the Virgin Islands

(Related to D.V.I. Civ. No. 10-cv-00028)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 14, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 27, 2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Krim M. Ballentine, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus 

compelling the District Court to issue a declaratory judgment, grant a hearing, and 

respond to his filings and letters. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.

Ballentine filed suit against the defendants in the District Court in March 2010. 

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in May 2010. On July 28, 2010, Ballentine filed 

a motion requesting a hearing. Two months later, on September 30, 2010, Ballentine 

filed a letter that appears to ask for “someone to answer the questions posed . . .”
2

Months later, on March 15, 2011, Ballentine filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus, seeking a declaratory judgment in the District Court on his then-pending 

complaint. Ballentine states that he received no response to his “filings and inquiry 

letters,” and further requests a “pre-trial status hearing or trial; or, a Judgment issue 

where „natural born‟ is designated a non-court decision.”

When Ballentine filed this mandamus petition, the District Court had not yet ruled 

on his motion requesting a hearing or on the defendant‟s motion to dismiss. However, on 

March 22, 2011, the District Court denied the motion for a hearing, and, on March 31, 

2011, granted the motion to dismiss the complaint. Because the case has been closed, we 

will deny the mandamus petition as moot.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 23, 2017


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 303


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on March 22, 2017, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms and
Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the
evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-215491) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO________________


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 8438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02486]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Special Topics: Noninvasive 
Neuromodulation and Neuroimaging Technologies February 23, 2024, 09:00 
a.m. to February 23, 2024, 08:00 p.m., Washington Marriott Georgetown, 
1221 22nd Street NW, Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the 
Federal Register on February 01, 2024, 89 FR 6531, Doc 2024-01958.
    This meeting is being amended to change the location from 
Washington Marriott, Georgetown 1221 22nd Street NW, Washington, DC 
20037 to Embassy Suites Alexandria 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, VA 
22314. The meeting is closed to the public.

     Dated: February 2, 2024.
Lauren Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-02486 Filed 2-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P