alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GEORGE MCLEOD, III, a/k/a Pimp Stick Quezzy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior 

District Judge. (3:12-cr-00329-CMC-1; 3:14-cv-00365-CMC)

Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 16, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George McLeod, III, Appellant Pro Se. Tommie DeWayne Pearson, 

Jamie L. Schoen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George McLeod, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) motions

following the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

McLeod 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18
U.S.C SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of First Security Bancorp, Inc. (the First Security) 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), I, R. Douglas Hutcherson, President and Chief
Executive Officer of First Security, 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 and 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 First Security.

|                    |  |                                                                                             
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  May 14, 2004 |  | Signature  /s/ R. Douglas Hutcherson
                  President and Chief Executive Officer

Page 24 of 25
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 13353)    
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; NSD-A/B Member Conflict Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         March 15, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Surojeet Sengupta, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NINDS/NIH/HHS, NSC, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 5134, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-496-9223,                         *surojeet.sengupta@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS.)

Dated: February 16, 2024.

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-03598 Filed 2-21-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1658 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1658

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs telehealth clinic in Craig, 
 Colorado, as the ``Major William Edward Adams Department of Veterans 
                           Affairs Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2011

   Mr. Tipton (for himself, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Polis, Mr. Gardner, Mr. 
 Lamborn, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, and Mr. Perlmutter) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To name the Department of Veterans Affairs telehealth clinic in Craig, 
 Colorado, as the ``Major William Edward Adams Department of Veterans 
                           Affairs Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TELEHEALTH CLINIC, 
              CRAIG, COLORADO.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs telehealth clinic in Craig, 
Colorado, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known 
and designated as the ``Major William Edward Adams Department of 
Veterans Affairs Clinic''. Any reference to such clinic in any law, 
regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States 
shall be considered to be a reference to the ``Major William Edward 
Adams Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DENVER R. HALL, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3334

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed April 13, 2018. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, 

Judge.

Denver R. Hall, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**BABATU B. JOHNSON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 915 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 20th day of April, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
#### Erwin L. GLASPY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28874.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 13, 1957.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $250.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-105-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
2113 RAYBURN House Of'Foce BuotooNG 

W ASHINGTON, 0C 20515 

(202) 225-2605 

RICK LARSEN 

2ND DISTRICT, W ASHINGTON 

DISTRICT OFFICES; 

119 N. COMMERCIAL STREET, SUITE 1350 

BELLINGHAM, WA 98225 

)360) 733-4500 

2930 WETMORE AvENUE, SUITE 9F 

EVERETT, WA 98201 

(425) 252- 3188 

CltongrtS'S' of tbt iltnittb ~tattti 

J)ou5e of l\epre5entattbe5 

Dafrt.)ington, iDe! 20515-4702 

E·Mail: Rick.larsen@mail.house.gov 

http:Jna rsen.house.gov 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

May 13,2015 

The Honorable John Kerry 

Secretary 

U.S. Department ofState 

2201 C Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20520 

Dear Secretary Foxx and Secretary Kerry: 

COMMITTEES· 

TRANSPORTATION 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

ARMED SERVICES 

I write to express my concern that under existing Open Skies agreements, the three largest air 

carriers of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have created excessive capacity in U.S. air travel 

markets while engaging in reported labor practices that can create unnecessary risks to the longterm sustainability of the global airline industry. 

I am concerned that the three carriers are engaged in multiple U.S. markets with a number of 

seats far beyond the demand in those markets for air travel to the Middle East, Africa, and India. 

Some flights reportedly operate with load factors as low as 50 percent or less. Emirates, for 

example, operates a daily Airbus A380 seating up to 517 passengers between Dubai and DallasFort Worth, yet a Brookings Institution study found that in 2011, only about 55 people on 

average traveled between those two cities daily on an origin-and-destination basis. 

I am also concerned about reports that the three carriers' labor policies are inconsistent with the 

values we have vigorously protected over the history of our air transportation system. For 

example, among the employees of the three carriers, my understanding is collective bargaining is 

forbidden, and there are reports of women and those belonging to sexual minorities facing 

legalized discrimination. 

If a U.S. airline engaged in this kind of practices, our laws would allow the government or other 

U.S. airlines to address it under existing law and rules. An Open Skies regime should be no 

different: The United States must ensure that our Open Skies agreements support U.S. interests 

rather than harm them. 

I urge you to utilize existing rules in Open Skies agreements with the United Arab Emirates and 

Qatar to determine a path forward that preserves the goal of full and fair global competition in 

the aviation industry. 

ZJRick 

Ranking 

Larsen 

Member 

~ 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

510-150514-006 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

PACIFIC MERCANTILE BANCORP

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A

for the quarter ended September 30, 2009

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies that (i) Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and
15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2010 |  | /s/ RAYMOND E. DELLERBA                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|                     |  | Raymond E. Dellerba,                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                      
|                     | 
|                     |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1476 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1476

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude certain 
   advanced diagnostic imaging services from the in-office ancillary 
   services exception to the prohibition on physician self-referral.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2011

Ms. Speier (for herself and Mr. Weiner) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude certain 
   advanced diagnostic imaging services from the in-office ancillary 
   services exception to the prohibition on physician self-referral.

    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 ``Integrity in Medicare Advanced 
Diagnostic Imaging Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUDING CERTAIN ADVANCED DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES FROM THE 
              IN-OFFICE ANCILLARY SERVICES EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION 
              ON PHYSICIAN SELF-REFERRAL.

    (a) In General.--Section 1877(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395nn(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking 
        ``and supplies'' and inserting ``, supplies, and certain 
        advanced diagnostic imaging services''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of 
        this paragraph, the term `certain advanced diagnostic imaging 
        services' means diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging, computed 
        tomography, and positron emission tomography, and such other 
        diagnostic imaging services, including services described in 
        section 1848(b)(4)(B) (but excluding X-ray, ultrasound, and 
        fluoroscopy), as specified by the Secretary in consultation 
        with physician specialty organizations and other stakeholders, 
        but does not include imaging services performed for purposes of 
        radiation therapy treatment planning or in conjunction with an 
        interventional radiological procedure or nuclear medicine other 
        than positron emission tomography.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to services furnished on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, regardless of when the referral for such services is or was 
made.
                                 <all>
```
?44- 

Douglas 

660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (holding that petitioner's claim of organic 

brain damage, borderline mental retardation, and reliance on assistance of 

inmate law clerk unschooled in the law did not constitute good cause for 

the filing of a successive post-conviction petition). 

Next, appellant claimed he had good cause due to a lack of 

access to the prison law library and because the prison law library is 

inadequate. Appellant failed to demonstrate that inadequate law libraries 

or lack of access to the library deprived him of meaningful access to the 

courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977), limited by Lewis v. 

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-56 (1996). Appellant's previous proper person 

motions filed in the district court indicate that his access to the court was 

not improperly limited by restrictions on use of the prison law library or 

due to prison law library policies. Accordingly, he failed to demonstrate 

that official interference caused him to be unable to comply with the 

procedural bars. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 

506 (2003). Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing the 

petition as procedurally barred. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

Saitta 

J. 

J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

II 
cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge 

Leo David Hanson 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

3
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 Quarterly Report of WebEx Communications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Subrah S. Iyar, Chief Executive Officer 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 to the
best of 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 result of operations of
the Company.

Date:  May 14, 2003


/s/   SUBRAH S. IYAR
---------------------
Subrah S. Iyar
Chief Executive Officer











This statement is submitted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
shall not be deemed to be filed for the purpose of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities
of that section.
#### Harry Newton COPPINGER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28571.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. *7,*1956.

*833No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is aggravated assault; .the . punishment,' sixty .days, in ,j ail. ,

The record on appeal- contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review., The judgment is affirmed.