alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6327

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL BRISTOL HARRINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-72-1; 1:05-cv-00014-WLO) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 26, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Bristol Harrington, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Samuel Bristol Harrington 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. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harrington has not made the requisite showing. 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
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-5075

MICHAEL KAWA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 06-CV-448,

Judge George W. Miller.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Michael Kawa moves for an extension of time to file his brief.

The court notes that the briefing schedule was stayed on May 29, 2009.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

Date

cc:	Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., Esq.

Leslie Gayer Ohta, Esq.

s19

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

JON 0 4 an

JAN HORMLY

CLERK

JUN -4 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4635-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Washington (FEMA-4635-DR), dated January 5, 2022, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on January 19, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lance E. Davis, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Toney L. Raines as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-02375 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William McGinty, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Global Innovative Systems, Inc., certify that:

1. 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 small business issuer, 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;
2. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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
3. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

1. 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 small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 13, 2004

/s/ William McGintyWilliam McGinty
President, Secretary and Treasurer
(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT

TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nancy E. Pecota, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 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/ Nancy E. PecotaNancy E. PecotaVice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer


Dated: May 9, 2016
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, Larry S. Royster , 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.

September 3, 2013

h0826 

# Order

Clerk September 3, 2013

146708

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146708

COA: 309142

Oakland CC: 1999

- 164979

- FC

HENRY GLEEN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 13, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIE D, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
aeti-ex1037_267.htm



 

Exhibit 10.37

Summary of Compensation For Named Executive Officers 2017*

 

 

In February 2017, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors established 2017 salary and target bonus applicable to our named executive officers as follows:

 

 


	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Named Executive
	
  
	
2017
Base Salary($)
	
 
	
  
	
2017
Target Bonus($)
	
 

	
Charles M. Dauber
	
  
	
 
	
350,000
	
  
	
  
	
 
	
175,000
	
  

	
William C. Miller
	
  
	
 
	
210,000
	
  
	
  
	
 
	
100,000
	
  

	
Neal T. Hare
	
  
	
 
	
160,000
	
  
	
  
	
 
	
100,000
	
  

	
James J. Steffek
	
  
	
 
	
160,000
	
  
	
  
	
 
	
100,000
	
  







	
William Brod
	
  
	
 
	
200,

000
	
  
	
  
	
 
	
60,000
	
  




 

In connection with the 2017 salary and target bonus established for our named executive officers, the following were awarded performance-based restricted stock units under the 2007 Employee Stock Incentive Plan:

 


	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Named Executive
	
  
	
Restricted Stock Units
	
 

	
Charles M. Dauber
	
  
	
 
	
80,000
	
  

	
William C. Miller
	
  
	
 
	
15,000
	
  

	
William Brod
	
  
	
 
	
24,911
ACCEPTED 01-14-00579-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/25/2015 10:05:28 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
#### Lloyd Ray YOUNG, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 36433.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 5, 1964.

John Robert Florence, Kilgore, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the subsequent offense of driving while intoxicated; the *892punishment, one year in the Texas Department of Corrections.

It is undisputed that the appellant was driving an automobile upon a public highway at the time and place alleged.

Two officers testified that they saw the appellant driving his automobile back and forth across the center stripe on the highway at a fast rate of speed; and that after he had stopped, they observed his actions and conduct and based thereon, they expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated.

Proof of the prior conviction alleged was introduced and that the appellant was the same person so convicted.

Testifying in his own behalf, the appellant admitted he had drunk one can of beer and had another can with him when arrested, but he denied that he was intoxicated. He attributed any unusual physical condition to the long hours he had been working, and also testified that the steering gear of the car was defective which caused the erratic manner in which it was operated.

The record contains no formal bills of exception, no requested charges and no objections to the court’s charge.

In his amended motion for new trial, appellant alleges that the testimony of Albert Pryor was unavailable to him because he was out of the county during the trial. Pryor was not summoned, no continuance was requested in order to later obtain his testimony, and appellant announced ready for trial. No error is presented.

Appellant’s complaint in said motion that he was not permitted to argue to the jury in rebuttal to the closing argument of the state shows no error. Art. 648 C.C.P.

 The further complaint in the motion is that a member of the jury was related to the appellant within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity. This complaint cannot be presented by an informal bill of exception under the provisions of Art. 760e Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. However, it is observed that the testimony on the hearing of the motion fails to show that any inquiry was made on the voir dire examination of the jury panel touching their relationship to the appellant. In the absence of a showing that such inquiry was made, appellant will not be heard to complain of such relationship after verdict. 1 Branch’s Ann.P.C.2d 541, Sec. 565; Perkins v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 399, 46 S.W.2d 672. Further, there is no showing that the appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges and thereafter an objectionable juror was forced upon him. Rogers v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 3 S.W.2d 455.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, and no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of uWink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter F. Wilkniss,
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.


July 19, 2006                                      By:  /s/ PETER F. WILKNISS
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Peter F. Wilkniss
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                                        Chief Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT
      32.1


**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of International Synergy Holding Company, Ltd. N/K/A Along
      Mobile Technologies, Inc.., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
      certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:


The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2004 (the
      "Form 10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
      in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      International Synergy Holding Company, Ltd. N/K/A Along Mobile Technologies,
      Inc. and will be retained by International Synergy Holding Company, Ltd. N/K/A
      Along Mobile Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.




Dated:
      April 28, 2006




/s/ Jian
                Wei
                LiJian Wei Li
                President and Chief
                  Executive Officer


/s/ Zhen
                  WanZhen
                    Wan
                  Chief
                    Financial Officer
4

(

•

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 16

Paint Filter Test

50 FR 18370-18375

April 30, 1985.

(HSWA Cluster I)

STATE ANALOG IS:

FEDERAL

REQUIREMENT

FEDERAL

RCRA

CITATION

ANALOGOUS

STATE

CITATION

MORE BROADEQUIV- STRIN- ER IN

ALENT GENT SCOPE

PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS

WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS

GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS WAC 173-303

SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING

•

analyses methods

OPERATING RECORD

test results

264.13(b)(6)·

264. 73(b) (3)

-300(5) (f)

WAC 173-303

-380(1)(c)

-300(4)(f)

x

x

SUBPART N - LANDFILLS

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BULK AND CONTAINERIZED LIQUIDS WAC 173-303

paint filter test 264.314(c) -140(4)(b)(iii) X

PART 265 - INTERIM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS

WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILIT~ES

SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS

SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING

•

GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS

analyses methods

OPERATING RECORD

265.13(b)(6)

WAC 173-303

-300(5)(f)

WAC 173-303

X

April 30, 1985 - Page 1 of 2
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 16: Paint Filter

Test (cont'd)

,-\

'..;

•

FEDERAL

REQUIREMENT

test results

FEDERAL

RCRA

CITATION

265.73(b)(3)

ANALOGOUS

STATE

CITATION

- 300(4) (f)

-380(1) (c)

STATE ANALOG IS:

MORE BROADEQUIV- STRIN- ER IN

ALENT GENT SCOPE

x

•

•

SUBPART N - ~DFILLS

SPECIAL REqUiREMENTS FOR BULK AND CONTAINERIZED LIQUIDS WAC 173-303

140(4) (b) (iii)

paint filter test 265.314 (d) & 400(3) X

April 30, 1985 - Page 2 of 2
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 29, 20 15.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15- 922

Lower Tribunal No. 11

- 25608

________________



### Omar Romay, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.



### Caribevision Holdings, Inc., et al.,

Appellees.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Monica Gordo, Judge.

Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, P.A., and Adam M. Schachter, Dan Gelber

and Freddy Funes; David M. Rogero; Coffey Burlington, P.L., and Kendall B.

Coffey and Benjamin H. Brodsky

, for appellants.

Dorta & Orta, P.A., and Omar Ortega and Nicole Ruesca, for appellees.

Before SALTER, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAMPursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(D) of the Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure, Appellants (“Romay”) seek review of the trial court’s non-final order

appointing a receiver to take control of the assets and business operations of the

parties’ joint venture. 1 Upon its formation, Romay and the Appellees

(“Caribevision”) each owned fifty percent of the joint venture. The parties’ dispute

involves, among other things, the validity of equity adjustments in favor of Romay

that affect the parties’ respective ownership interest in the joint venture.

Caribevision asserts that a receivership is necessary to prevent irreparable

harm to the parties’ joint venture, and that, consistent with our holding in Romay

v

. Caribevision Holdings, Inc

, 147 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), sections

607.1432(6) and 608.4492(6) 2 of the Florida Statutes authorize the trial court to

appoint a receiver for the joint venture.

After conducting an evidentiary hearing over the course of two days, the

trial court entered a detailed and extensive order granting Caribevision’s motion

for appointment of a receiver. In its order, the trial court recognizes “an imminent

need to preserve the status quo” of the joint venture during the pendency of the

parties’ continuing litigation concerning the ownership of the joint venture.

1 The joint venture consists collectively of America-CV Network, LLC and

America-CV Station Group, Inc., both Delaware entities.

2 Section 608.4492(6) has been re-numbered under the Florida Revised Limited

Liability Act as section 605.0704(6).

2Further, the order appointing a receiver contemplates that the receiver will resume

the holding of board of directors meetings, which have not occurred despite a prior

trial court order

– approved by this Court 3

– that appointed a referee to conduct

such meetings.

We review the appointment of a receiver under an abuse of discretion

standard. Puma Enters. Corp. v. Vitale

, 566 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Based on the record before this Court, we conclude that the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by entering the order on appeal.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the parties’ underlying

dispute, we affirm the trial court’s order appointing a receiver.

Affirmed.

3 Romay v. Caribevision Holdings, Inc.

, 147 So. 3d at 126-27.

3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7414
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRYANT PIERRE BOONE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-21-A) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryant Pierre Boone, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bryant Pierre Boone appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Boone , No. CR-96-21-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 22, 2005). 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