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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1863

DESPINA NEUPH LUCAS
,

Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v.

SHAWN CHRISTOPHER PFARNER; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY, a/k/a Vistar, A PFG Company, a/k/a Performance Food Service; RYDER LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS WORLDWIDE; SUMS SKIP AND COLLECTION, plus six other business names; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CITY/COUNTY OF HAMPTON, Virginia; DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, & District 1; CITY/COUNTY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA; CITY/COUNTY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; COUNTY OF CRAVEN, NORTH CARO LINA & DISTRICT 3B; COUNTY OF GRUNDY, ILLINOIS; CITY OF MORRIS, ILLINOIS; ROBERT SHAFFER, Deceased Robert & Martha Lynn Shaffer; CURRITUCK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; JAMES ELEFTHERIOU, Estate Administrator for Katina Lucas; YVONNE ELEFTHERIOU

- STEVENSON
,

D efendants

- Appellees

.

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

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:19

- cv

- 00503

- AWA

- LRL )

Submitted : March 9, 2021 Decided: March 23, 2021

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Despina Neuph Lucas , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Despina Neuph Lucas appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) . We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the distric t court. Lucas

v. Pfarner , No. 2:19

- cv

- 00503

- AWA

- LRL (E.D. Va. July 30, 2020) . 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
Exhibit 32.1


                         IDI Global, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     We the undersigned certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.   the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
     ended June 30, 2003, 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of the Company.



Date:   August 14, 2003       /s/ Kevin R. Griffith
                              __________________________________________
                              Kevin R. Griffith
                              Chief Executive Officer


                              /s/ Melanie Young
Date:   August 14, 2003       __________________________________________
                              Melanie Young
                              Principal Financial Officer
#### JOYCE LATKA *v.*RAYMOND F. LATKA

(14393)

Dupont, C. J., and Lavery and Spear, Js.

Submitted on briefs January 9

decision released February 13, 1996

*922
      *Thomas C. C. Sargent*filed a brief for the appellant (defendant).

*Richard G. Kent*filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31       Rule 13a-14(d) Certification



                                            CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas G. Lehmann,  President of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of WaMu Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-AR2;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual  compliance  statement  included in
the report and required to be delivered  to the trustee in  accordance  with the
terms of the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,  agreement,  and  except as
disclosed in the reports,  the servicer has fulfilled its obligations  under the
servicing agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided
by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,
that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:




None


Dated: March 30, 2006

                                     /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Thomas G. Lehmann,
                                     President
#### C. E. SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27505.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 23, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for passing a forged instrument; the punishment, three years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed his personal affidavit requesting the dismissal of the appeal, which request is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1


                                IDI Global, Inc.

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of IDI Global, Inc. (the "Company") certifies
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

1.       the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
         ended March 31, 2005, 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



Date: May 16, 2005              /s/ Kevin R. Griffith
                                Kevin R. Griffith
                                Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Robert L. Van Nostrand, certify that:


         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of OSI
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 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.






Date:  January 18, 2005

                                      /s/ Robert L. Van Nostrand
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Robert L. Van Nostrand
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### PANKE v. PANKE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 19, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1953.

James T. Robertson, Louisville, for- appellant.

Davis W. Edwards and Wallis Downing, Louisville, for appellee.

DUNCAN, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court sustaining an order of the county court refusing to probate the alleged holographic will of Callye C. Panke. This case is an outgrowth of the facts which were considered in Panke v. Panke, Ky., 252 S.W.2d 909.

The document in question, entirely in the handwriting of Callye C. Panke, is as follows :

> “In the year of 1930 between the months of March or May I turned over 5 pieces of property to Rudolph E. Panke which he accepted as payment in full, as his part of the estate left by his father. The deal was put through by L. D. Greene.

> /s/ Callye C. Panke”

Appearing on a separate sheet of paper and alleged to be explanatory of the previous writing is the following, also in the handwriting-of Mrs. Panke:

> “Esther — if you have trouble show this.

> /s/ Mama”

It is hardly necessary to cite authorities in support of the proposition that a will is essentially a disposition of property and a document which disposes of nothing is not a will. In Quinlan v. Quinlan, 293 Ky. 565, 169 S.W.2d 617, 618, it was said:

> “It is axiomatic that a writing which disposes of nothing is not a probative testamentary document. Abundant authorities could be cited in support thereof, but the proposition is so elementary that we do not deem it necessary to encumber the opinion therewith.”

Appellant insists that the two writings considered together evidence a clear intention to exclude the appellee, Rudolph E. Panke, from participation in Mrs. Pan-ke’s estate. It is unnecessary to consider that question since the authorities are gen*398erally agreed that an instrument, although executed with the formality of a will, is not entitled to probate where it does nothing more than exclude an heir from participation in the estate. 57 Am.Jur., page 56, § 28, Wills.

The court properly refused to probate the document in question.

The judgment is affirmed.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HER NAN OR OZC O, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. EDM UND G. B R O W

N, Jr., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 15-16047 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01404-M C EC KD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M orrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. He rnan Oroz c o, a

c ivil de ta ine e at C oa linga State Hospita l, a

ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his petition for writ of m a n d am us se e k ing tra

nsfe r to a diffe re nt prison hospita

l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we va c at e and re m and. 

# FIL ED DEC 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).The distric t c ourt c o nve rte d Oroz c o’ s m a n dam us pe tition to a

42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion, found it de fic ie nt, a nd gra nte d le ave to a

m e nd. Oroz c o inste a d file d anothe r pe tition for writ of m anda m us. W e va c ate the dism issa l orde r an d re m and for the distric t c ourt to provide Oroz c o with notic e of the de fic ie nc ie s in his § 1983 c om pla i nt a nd a n opportunity

to file a ne w § 1983 c om

pla int with the

be ne fit of that notic e . S e e Ak h t ar v . Me sa , 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ [B ] e fore dism issing a

pro se c om

pla int the distric t c ourt m ust providethe litiga

nt with notic e of the de fic ie nc ie s in his c om pla int in orde r to e nsure tha t the litiga

nt use s the o pportunity

to a m e nd e ffe c tive ly .” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om i tte d)). To the e xte nt Oroz c o c onte nds the distric t c ourt fa ile d to c om ply with this c ourt’ s writ of m anda

m us, we disa gre e . V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

1 5 - 1 6 0 4 7 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SAMUEL ALLEN WASHINGTON,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-10-00214-CR

Appeal from

 187th District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC # 2010-CR-2505)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Samuel Allen Washington attempts to appeal his of aggravated assault. Finding that

Appellant has not timely filed his notice of appeal or a motion for extension of time, we dismiss the

appeal.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918

S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). The record before us reflects that sentence was imposed

in open court on May 13, 2010. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, his notice

of appeal was due to be filed on June 12, 2010, thirty days after the date sentence was imposed in

open court. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(1). On June 27, 2010, Appellant filed a motion for extension

of time to file notice of appeal but he did not file notice of appeal. Pursuant to Rule 26.3, a court of

appeals may grant an extension of time to file notice of appeal if the notice is filed within fifteen

days after the last day allowed and, within the same period, a motion is filed in the court of appeals

reasonably explaining the need for the extension of time. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at

522. Because Appellant did not file notice of appeal, he failed to perfect this appeal. Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
September 29, 2010 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Annual Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ending January 1, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven Kass, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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/Steven
 Kass*         | 
|                         | 
|Steven Kass              | 
|Chief
 Financial Officer

Date: April 11,
2011

|                                                                                                                                                           | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|* The originally
 executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Companys
 offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.

This certification accompanies
this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference

---
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2034 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

include fire police officers in the list of officers who are eligible for 

public safety officers’ death benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2011 

Mr. GERLACH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to include fire police officers in the list 

of officers who are eligible for public safety officers’ 

death benefits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DEATH BENEFITS 

4 FOR FIRE POLICE OFFICERS. 

5 Section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

6 Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through 

8 (9) as paragraphs (6) through (10), respectively; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2034 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (10)(A) (as so redesignated by 

2 paragraph (1) of this section), by inserting ‘‘as a 

3 fire police officer,’’ after ‘‘firefighter,’’; and 

4 (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol5 lowing new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(5) ‘fire police officer’ means an officially rec7 ognized or designated member of a volunteer fire po8 lice association or squad who is legally authorized by 

9 a State or local government to assist in event crowd 

10 control, scene control in emergencies, traffic control 

11 in emergencies, and missing person searches;’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 1 9

- 0117

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

VERNON ARVID LEPPINK

,
Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss

appeal and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s appeal in the above

matter is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 4 2020

03/04/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0117
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending January 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Kass, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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/Steven Kass*
---------------
Steven Kass
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  April 7, 2005



* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of First Security Bancorp, Inc. (the First Security) on Form 10- QSB
for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kristie L. Eubank, Chief Financial
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 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 11, 2005 | /s/ Kristie L. Eubank                    | 
|                    | Kristie L. EubankChief Financial Officer |
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: March 31, 2014

TO: Phil Mulrine, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

FROM: Bradley Nelson, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT: Summary of the March 10, 2014 Meeting with the Ferroalloys Production 

Industry and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the teleconference was to follow-up on the proposed opacity requirements 

submitted by the industry. This meeting summary will be available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895). The proposed rule for ferroalloys 

production was published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2011 (76 FR 72508). 

II. ATTENDEES

The following is a list of participants in the meeting.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Chuck French

Phil Mulrine

Colin Boswell

Steffan Johnson

Eramet Marietta 

Jeff McKinney, Eramet Marietta

John Rego, Jones Day

Felman Production

Laura McAfee, Beveridge and Diamond

Policy Navigation Group

Troy Hillier

EC/R Incorporated

Bradley Nelson 
III. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

The purpose of the meeting was to follow-up on the industry’s submittal of proposed opacity and 

monitoring options for the supplemental proposal. The industry options were provided prior to 

the February 26, 2014 meeting with the industry and are included as an attachment to the 

meeting minutes.1The following is a brief summary of the major points that were discussed 

during the meeting.

NESHAP Opacity Standard

 The industry noted that the high opacity data provided to the EPA are based on nonnormal operations that occur infrequently. They also noted that the opacity values for 

these events are based on estimates and do not reflect a formal Method 9 reading during 

the event.

 A suggestion was made for automated capture systems to monitor duct pressure rather 

than monitoring fan amperes or damper position which change during normal operations.

 The industry asked if any additional information was needed from them to help with 

making decisions from the supplemental proposal. 

Other Topics Discussed

 The industry stated that they met with Janet McCabe to discuss the proposed NESHAP.

The discussion focused on mercury emissions from the furnaces, but opacity was also 

discussed.

 The EPA stated that they were following up on some of the requests from the meeting 

with Janet McCabe including;

o Having the economist review CBI materials,

o Reviewing information from the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC),

o Having internal discussion with Steve Fruh and others at EPA on various aspects 

of the supplemental proposal.

 

1 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R to Phil Mulrine, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/MMG, Summary of the February 

26, 2014 Meeting with the Ferroalloys Production Industry and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 

3, 2014.