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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6755

CHRISTOPHER HICKSON, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

OFFICER JOHN STEWART, individually and in his official 

capacity as a Lake City Police Officer; OFFICER SANDY 

THOMPSON, individually and in his official capacity as a 

Lake City Police Officer; OFFICER KEVIN COOK, individually 

and in his official capacity as a Lake City Police Officer; 

CHIEF OF POLICE BILLY BROWN, individually and his official 

capacity as the former and/or present Chief of Police of the 

Lake City Police Department; CHIEF OF POLICE JODY COOPER, 

individually and her official capacity as the former and/or 

present Chief of Police of the Lake City Police Department; 

THE CITY OF LAKE CITY, 

Defendants - Appellees, 

and 

THE LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior 

District Judge. (4:15-cv-02433-CMC) 

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Christopher Hickson, Appellant Pro Se. Walker Heinitsh Willcox, 

WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

Christopher Hickson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting in part the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge, granting summary judgment to Appellees, and dismissing 

his civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

April 26, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on June 2, 2016. 

Because Hickson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
            FROM THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000
            AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE THREE
            MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                4,164
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        11,660
<ALLOWANCES>                            683
<INVENTORY>                           7,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     25,069
<PP&E>                               17,458
<DEPRECIATION>                        5,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       42,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 6,797
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  5
<OTHER-SE>                           34,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         42,169
<SALES>                              23,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     23,678
<CGS>                                10,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        10,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       (245)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       2,082
<INCOME-TAX>                            832
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   1,250
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          1,250
<EPS-BASIC>                         $0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                         $0.23



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1





Certification





I, Evan
L. Kaplan, certify that:





1.     I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K/A of
iPass Inc.;





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.







April
      30, 2009
                      /s/Evan L.
      KaplanEvan
      L. Kaplan
                        Chief
      Executive Officer and President
                        (Principal
      Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         874,511
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,400,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                   335,864
<INVENTORY>                                    356,702
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,370,575
<PP&E>                                       1,073,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                 703,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,583,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,630,509
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,369,883
<COMMON>                                     9,625,812
<OTHER-SE>                                     549,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,583,274
<SALES>                                      8,354,331
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,435,423
<CGS>                                        7,341,417
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,987,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,059,456
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             196,428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                199,878
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            201,086
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,208)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   161,128
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


1.  Internet Security Systems, Inc. (Georgia)
2.  Internet Security Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
3.  ISS Group Ltd. (United Kingdom)
4.  ISS Investment Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
5.  Internet Security Systems NV (Belgium)
6.  Internet Security Systems KK (Japan)
7.  Netrex, Inc. (Michigan)
8.  NJH Security Consulting, Inc. (Georgia)
9.  Intelligent Shopping, Inc. (Georgia)
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Multi-Media Tutorial Services, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending May
31, 2008, I, Barry Reichman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:

      1.    Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending May 31,
            2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
            the quarter ending May 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
            Company.


Dated: July 15, 2008

/s/ BARRY REICHMAN
-----------------------------
Barry Reichman
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH WARREN ALLISON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-446-A, CA-97-649-AM) Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Warren Allison, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson, III, 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: Kenneth Warren Allison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Allison , Nos. CR-90-446-A; CA-97-649-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 1997). To the extent that Allison challenged the forfeiture of his personal property, however, we note that the dismissal is without prejudice to his filing of a motion for return of seized property pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Operations
found on pages 3 and 4 of the company's Form 10-Q for the year to date
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         211,584
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  464,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               676,084
<PP&E>                                      12,496,940
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,582,184)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,704,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,717,462
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,986,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,704,020
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,212,596
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,279,982
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             133,130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (200,576)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (200,576)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (200,576)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
JACQUELINE WALDEN,

Appellant,

v.

HILLSBOROUGH AREA 

REGIONAL TRANSIT AND 

COMMERCIAL RISK 

MANAGEMENT,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4095

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Mark A. Massey, Judge.

Date of Accident: March 27, 2014.

Michael J. Winer of the Law Office of Michael J. Winer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Steven Hovsepian and Katherine Stone Agliano of Barbas, Nunez, Sanders, Butler 

& Hovsepian, Tampa, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The court having received the August 24, 2016, order of the Supreme Court 

of Florida quashing this court’s opinion of February 19, 2016, and remanding the 

CORRECTED PAGES: pg 1

CORRECTION IS UNDERLINED IN 

RED

MAILED: October 7, 2016

BY: KMS
2

matter for reconsideration upon application of Castellanos v. Next Door Co., 192 

So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2016), and finding that reversal is warranted in light of that opinion, 

the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims is REVERSED and this case is 

REMANDED for proceedings consistent with that opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
OMB Control No. 2060-0347

OMB No. 2060-0528

STATEMENT OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE

Enter Name

For 12-month period 

ending: Enter Month/Day/Year

Facility Address Owner's Address Corporate Energy Manager Contact

Enter Name Owner's Name Contact Name

Street Address Street Address Email Address

Address 2 Address 2 Phone Number

New York, NY City, State

10000 ZIP

Automobile Assembly Plant 

Energy Performance Indicator

Energy Performance 

Score: 100

GHG Savings (Kg CO2e) 165

Energy Savings (MMBtu) 3

Professional Verification

Professional Engineer 

Name

Address

Address 2

City, State ZIP

Phone Number:

License Number:

Licensing State: Professional Engineer Stamp

EPI Verification

Based on the conditions observed at the 

time of my visit to this facility, I certify that 

the information used in this tool to generate 

the energy performance score represented 

on this statement is accurate.

NOTE:

1. Applications for certification of plant energy performance to the US EPA must be made within 4 months of 

Period Ending date. Award of the ENERGY STAR is not final until approved by the US EPA.

EPI attached for EPA review.

EPI contains proprietary information 

and has been sent to the designated 

reviewer.
OMB Control No. 2060-0347

2. All energy performance scores and supporting data must first be verified by the US EPA or a US EPAdesignated EPI reviewer if supporting data is considered to be proprietary before submitting applications for the 

ENERGY STAR.

3. An energy performance score of 75 is the minimum required score to be considered eligible for the ENERGY 

STAR.

4. Estimates of energy and CO2 emissions savings are provided to illustrate the difference between the 

benchmarked plant's energy use and estimated CO2 emissions as compared to "an average plant" that is defined 

as having an energy performance score at the 50th percentile.

The fuel mix used to estimate emissions data for the average plant is the same as for the benchmarked plant. 

These estimates are provided to assist plants with communicating their energy and environmental achievements.

For US EPA Use Only:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to range up to 15 minutes per response. Send 

comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, 

Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, 

D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.

EPA Form 5900-89
Exhibit 13.1

# CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 United
States Code § 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The
undersigned hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006 of Jinpan International Limited (the Company) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                    |        |                                             
|------------------- | ------ | --------------------------------------------
|Date: July 13, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Li Zhiyuan                              
|                    |       
|                    | Name:  | Li Zhiyuan                                  
|                    | Title: | Chief Executive Officer                     
|                    |        | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|                    |       
|Date: July 13, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Mark Du                                 
|                    |       
|                    | Name:  | Mark Du                                     
|                    | Title: | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                    |        | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL R. JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-125, CA-96-1029) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 29, 1999Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael R. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Jackson , Nos. CR-93-125; CA-96-1029 (E.D. Va. July 2, 1999). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6665

ALVIN BOWENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

J. VAUS, State Trooper, #9256,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00637-MSN-LRV)

Submitted: October 24, 2023 Decided: January 3, 2024

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin Bowens, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6665 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Alvin Bowens appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because it was filed beyond the applicable statute 

of limitations period. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Bowens v. Vaws, No. 1:23-cv-00637-

MSN-LRV (E.D. Va. June 13, 2023). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6665 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Order entered December 1 2 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00075 - CR WINTER KAY ARTHUR, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Count y Court at Law No. 2

Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16 - 30605 - CC2 - M



### O RDER Before the Court is the State’s November 27, 2018 motion to correct the amended reporter’s record and thereafter to extend the time to file the State’s brief. The amen ded reporter’s record filed with the Court on October 29, 2018 contains a two

- part video exhibit labeled as “Amend State’s Exhibit 4. ” The State alleges that only “part 00 1” of amended E xhibit 4 was admitted into evidence at trial and played for the jury. Accordingly, the State has moved to strike “part 00 2” of State’s amended Exhibit 4. Appellant has not filed an objection to the State’s request. From the discussion on the record, it appears only portions of one video feed were reviewed and played for the jury. We ORDER appellant’s counsel to file with the Court, on or before December 2 1, 2018 , a certification stating whether appellant agrees with the State’s position that “part 00 2” of State’s– 2

–

amended Exhibit 4 was not admitted into evidence or played for the jury and should be stricken from the record

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 34.6(e)(1). If either appellant does not agree with the State’s assertion regarding “part 00 2” of amended State’s Exhibit 4 or if appellant fails to respond to this order, the case will be abated for a hearing in the trial court to resolve the issue concerning the accuracy of amended State’s Exhibit 4

. We GRANT the portion of the State’s motion seeking an extension of time to file the State’s brief and ORDER the State’s brief filed on or before THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE