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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1031

YODAGENT WAST-TEUH UWA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS; TIFFANY HARRIS; KIMBERY SILLS; SANDRA 

STOVALL; TONI MONTGOMERY; JESSETA RAYE; ROBIN UNDERDEW; 

JOAN LEWIS; CHARLENE DEISCH; SUSA MORGAN; ANDREW O. 

AMARILLO,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:18-cv-00117-AWA-RJK)

Submitted: May 8, 2019 Decided: June 11, 2019

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yodagent Wast-teuh Uwa, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Yodagent Wast-teuh Uwa seeks to appeal the district court’s order to show cause,

which directed her to file an amended complaint to cure the defects addressed in the 

order. The district court advised Uwa that it would dismiss her case without prejudice if 

she failed to comply with the order, but the court did not dismiss the case. We may 

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen 

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order that Uwa seeks

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We 

therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district 

court. We direct on remand that the district court, in its discretion, either afford Uwa 

another opportunity to file an amended complaint or dismiss the complaint with 

prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable order. 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.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
EXHIBIT 31.1







Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to


Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14


as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Buddy Young, certify that:












2.           Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;





3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;





4.           I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:





a)           designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to


us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; and





b)           evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures, as of the date within ninety (90) days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and,





c)           presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5.           I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);





a)           all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls  which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weakness in the internal controls; and





b)           any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other  employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and,





6.           I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Dated May 25, 2010

By:/s/ Buddy YoungBUDDY YOUNG, Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
#### Ex parte HAWTHORNE.

No. 23967.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 14, 1948.

*409Lawrence Arnim, of Houston, for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Crim. Dist. Atty., and E. T. Branch, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., both of Houston, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the Hon. Frank Williford, Jr., Judge of the Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas, remanding relator in an extradition proceeding.

On June 2, 1947 the said judge granted a writ of habeas corpus and set same down for hearing. At relator’s request final action by the court was postponed until the 3d day of October, 1947, and the appearance bond of relator before said court was fixed at $300, which was executed and approved. When the order remanding relator was finally made, the judgment recited as follows: “* * * But as no officer appears to take the Relator into custody, Relator is ordered released on original bond in the sum of $300.00. To which action of the Court Relator excepts and gives notice of appeal in open Court to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas, at Austin. * * *”

It is made known to this court that relator is not in jail in Harris County, Texas, nor in the custody of the sheriff of said county, but was released on an appearance bond, and has not been in the custody of the sheriff since released on said appearance bond, and is not under an appeal bond to this court.

It has been the holding of this court that under the Acts of the 40th Legislature, p. 66, Ch. 43, (1927), Vernon’s Ann.Tex.C. C.P. Art. 857a, relator may be released upon bail fixed by the trial court pending appeal from an order in habeas corpus remanding relator in extradition cases. Ex parte Anderson, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 589, 113 S.W.2d 551.

It appearing that relator is not in custody, and not under an appeal bond binding him to abide the result of his appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain said appeal, and same is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         260,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,940,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,116,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,899,000
<PP&E>                                     151,732,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              41,219,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             130,327,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,150,000
<BONDS>                                     28,900,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    517,000
<COMMON>                                        42,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,987,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               130,327,000
<SALES>                                     16,649,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,649,000
<CGS>                                       12,536,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,470,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (152,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                35,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             759,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                589,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   235,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            354,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   354,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 11


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                           SONAT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                                                        Three Months                        Nine Months
                                                                    Ended September 30,                 Ended September 30,
                                                                    --------------------               --------------------
                                                               1997              1996             1997              1996
                                                               ----              ----             ----              ----
                                                                         (In Thousands Except Per-Share Amounts)

    Primary Earnings Per Share(1)

<S>                                                             <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>     
Net Income                                                      $12,970          $48,034          $116,039         $134,198
                                                                =======          =======          ========         ========


Common Stock and Common Stock Equivalents:

    Weighted Average Number of Shares
       of Common Stock Outstanding                               85,767           86,228            86,006           86,188
    Common Stock Equivalents Applicable
       to Outstanding Stock Options                               1,472            1,529             1,551            1,297
                                                                -------          -------          --------         --------

    Weighted Average Number of Shares
       of Common Stock and Common Stock
       Equivalents Outstanding                                   87,239           87,757            87,557           87,485
                                                                =======          =======          ========         ========


Primary Earnings Per Share                                      $   .15          $   .55          $   1.33         $   1.53
                                                                =======          =======          ========         ========
</TABLE>











(1)    This  calculation  is submitted in accordance  with  Regulation  S-K Item
       601(b)(11)  although  not  required by Footnote 2 to  Paragraph 14 of APB
       Opinion  No. 15 because it results in  dilution of less than 3%. For this
       reason,  the primary  earnings per share  amounts shown do not agree with
       earnings per share amounts shown on the Condensed Consolidated Statements
       of Income in Part I.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2343

MICHAEL D. BELVEAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00493-CMH-MSN)

Submitted: July 18, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Clifford M. Farrell, MANRING & FARRELL, Columbus, Ohio, for 

Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Hugham Chan,

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2343 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael D. Belveal appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation 

of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of 

Virginia Belveal’s application for disability insurance benefits. “In social security 

proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as does the district 

court. That is, a reviewing court must uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied 

correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial 

evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned 

up). “Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less 

than a preponderance.” Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). 

“In reviewing for substantial evidence, we do not undertake to reweigh conflicting 

evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. 

Where conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is 

disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 

F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up).

We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the 

correct legal standards in evaluating Belveal’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual 

findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment upholding the denial of benefits. Belveal v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-cv00493-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2343 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2343 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michelle Tucker certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Explorations Group, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
aspects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report.

4. Both myself and the chief financial officer are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this annual report
(the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. Based on our most recent evaluation:

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. We have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls and in other factors that could significantly
affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.

Date: March 29, 2004

/s/ Michelle Tucker
-------------------
Michelle Tucker, president, chief executive officer
Explorations Group, Inc.
FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ August 19, 2021

 JU

Case 5:20-cv-00176-FB Document 23 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 56875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22705]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Arts Advisory Panel Meeting

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the 
Arts and Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that two 
meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts 
will be held by teleconference from the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending times 
are approximate):
    Design (application review): This meeting will be closed.
    Dates: October 1, 2012. 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. EDT.
    Local Arts Agencies (application review): This meeting will be 
closed.
    Dates: October 1, 2012. 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information with reference to 
these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of 
Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, 
Washington, DC, 20506, or call 202/682-5691.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The closed portions of meetings are for the 
purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on 
financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in 
confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the 
Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the 
public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United 
States Code.

    Dated: September 11, 2012.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2012-22705 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25918]



[[Page 60180]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-615-00]


Southwest Gas Storage Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

October 3, 2000.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2000, Southwest Gas Storage 
Company (Southwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet proposed 
to become effective November 1, 2000.

Second Revised Sheet No. 5


    Southwest states that this filing is made in accordance with 
Section 16 (Fuel Reimbursement Adjustment) of the General Terms and 
Conditions in Southwest's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1. 
The Fuel Reimbursement Adjustment filed herewith reflects the following 
Fuel Reimbursement Percentages: (1) West Area Storage Facilities 
Injection 1.42% and Withdrawal 0.65%; and (2) East Area Storage 
Facilities Injection 2.43% and Withdrawal 1.17%.
    Southwest further states that copies of this filing are being 
served on all affected customers and applicable state regulatory 
agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-25918 Filed 10-06-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26013]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-2104; MM Docket No. 00-109; RM-9899]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Ravenwood, MO; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a final rule concerning Radio 
Broadcasting Service; Ravenwood, MO published in the Federal Register 
on September 26, 2000, 65 FR 57745.

DATES: Effective October 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a document amending part 73 in 
the Federal Register of September 26, 2000, 65 FR 57745 (FR Doc. 00-
24647). In that document, the Commission is correcting Sec. 73.202(b) 
to reflect a change in the community in the Table of FM Allotments from 
Ravenwood, Florida to Ravenwood, Missouri. In rule FR Doc. 00-24647, 
published September 26, 2000, 65 FR 57745, make the following 
corrections:

PART 73--[CORRECTED]


Sec. 73.202  [Corrected]

    1. On page 57745, in the third column, in amendatory instruction 2, 
in the second line, correct ``Florida'' to read ``Missouri.''

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-26013 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P