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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7667

RAYMOND BILLY SIMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EDWARD R. MURRAY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-94-393-1-AVB)

Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Billy Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Billy Sims seeks to appeal from the district

court’s order denying his supplemental motion to amend his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,

370 (4th Cir. 2004) (applying the certificate of appealability

requirement to appellate review of the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b) motion). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sims

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1636

In re: MICHAEL KENNY CARTER, a/k/a Blaze,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:17-cr-00351-JMC-1; 3:22-cv-00635-JMC)

Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: August 5, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Kenny Carter, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1636 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/05/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Kenny Carter petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district 

court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He seeks an order from 

this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay 

in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition and supplemental 

mandamus petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1636 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/05/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                               EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                THREE MONTHS     THREE MONTHS
                                                    ENDED            ENDED
                                                  MARCH 31,        MARCH 31,
                                                    1996              1997
                                                -------------    --------------
<S>                                             <C>              <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding..............  2,141,250          8,449,690
Incremental effect of issuance
  of Convertible Preferred Stock
  within one year prior to an
  initial public offering at a price
  below the offering price
  (i.e. cheap stock).............................    937,500                  -
Incremental effect of issuance of
  warrants and options within one
  year prior to an initial public offering
  with an exercise price below the
  offering price (i.e. cheap stock) based
  on the treasury stock method using
  the offering price.............................  1,745,769                  -
                                                  ----------
                                                   4,824,519          8,449,690
                                                  ==========         ==========
Net loss attributable to common stock............ $ (953,660)        $ (440,428)
                                                  ==========         ==========
Net loss per share...............................     $(0.20)        $    (0.05)
</TABLE>                                          ==========         ==========
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), V.Bryan Lawlis, Chief Executive Officer of Aradigm Corporation (the “Company”), and Thomas C.Chesterman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge:1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 11th day ofAugust 2005.   /s/ V. BRYAN LAWLIS V. Bryan Lawlis
## 

Exhibit 99.1

OSMONICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS   (In thousands)   Years Ended December 31, 1999, 1998 and 1997

|Column A                        |  | Column B |       | Column C |   | Column D |  | Column E
|------------------------------- |  | -------- | ----- | -------- | - | -------- |  | --------
|
|
|Year Ended December 31, 1999:   |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Current Operations:             |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Allowance for Doubtful Accounts |  | $        | 1,057 |          | $ | 762      |  |         
|                                |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Warranty and Start-up Reserve   |  | $        | 2,098 |          | $ | 2,052    |  |         
|                                |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Year Ended December 31, 1998:   |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Current Operations:             |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Allowance for Doubtful Accounts |  | $        | 888   |          | $ | 502      |  | $       
|                                |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Warranty and Start-up Reserve   |  | $        | 1,900 |          | $ | 2,046    |  |         
|                                |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Year Ended December 31, 1997:   |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Current Operations:             |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Allowance for Doubtful Accounts |  | $        | 907   |          | $ | 139      |  |         
|                                |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Warranty and Start-up Reserve   |  | $        | 1,802 |          | $ | 2,343    |  |         
|                                |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Discontinued Operations:        |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         
|Warranty Reserve                |  | $        | 1,957 |          |   |          |  |         
|                                |  |          |       |          |   |          |  |         

---





## QuickLinks
#### Ben McCOY and Houston Woodring v. STATE.

No. 17223.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 13, 1935.

Reynold M. Gardner, of Amarillo, for appellants.

Lloyd W. Davidson, -State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for 25 years.

It is charged in the indictment that the appellants took from the person of Oscar Johnson the sum of $2.80 in money.

A plea of not guilty was entered by each of the appellants.

There is before us no statement of the facts heard before the jury.

The proceedings, so far as presented by the record, are regular.

The judgment and sentence take note of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Vernon’s Anri. C. C. P. art. 775), under the terms of which the appellants are condemned to suffer confinement in the state penitentiar-y for a period of not less than 5, nor more than 25, years.

No error having been perceived or pointed out, the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a),

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dennis L. Winger, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Applied Biosystems 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: October 3, 2008



/s/ Dennis L. WingerChief Financial Officer
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 7/10/2012

Form REP-702

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Sample Number: 122604-001 Date Collected: 06/13/2012 08:40 Date Received: 6/13/2012

 Trip Blank

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg < 0.5 ng/L 0.5 0.2 ALS* 06/28/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122604-002 Date Collected: 06/13/2012 08:40 Date Received: 6/13/2012

 Field Blank

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 0.8 ng/L 0.5 0.2 ALS* 06/28/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122604-003 Date Collected: 06/13/2012 08:40 Date Received: 6/13/2012

Plant Outfall #001 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 2.6 ng/L 2 1 ALS* 06/27/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122604-004 Date Collected: 06/13/2012 08:20 Date Received: 6/13/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 3.4 ng/L 0.5 0.2 ALS* 06/28/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122604-005 Date Collected: 06/13/2012 08:25 Date Received: 6/13/2012

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 950 ng/L 5 2 ALS* 06/28/2012 EPA 1631E

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

*Analyzed by ALS Envoronmental Laboratory

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 122604 Page 1 of 1
O'toole, Catherine (OST) 

Subject: FW: Follow up to phone call •,--; -[..-r ^,-

From: O'toole, Catherine (OSr) ^ ' ' '-b 

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:27 PM 

To: 'DAVID HERNANDEZ' 

Cc: 'Scott Zemnick' 

Subject: Follow up to phone call 

Regarding VPAA's application for transfer of Gulfstream's commuter authority, I have several follow up questions 

regarding your application. 

1. Regarding the pre-operating costs -When will the approximately $18.7 \M\\ox\ in funds held in escrow will be 

released? 

2. VPCA's balance sheet refers to $6.8 million in recievables due from "Affiliated Parties". Who are the Affiliated 

Parties? 

3. Please provide 3^'* party verification of approx $18.15 million available to VPAA in order to meet the Department's 

financial fitness test. If the S"* party verification or line-of-credit is being supplied by an individual or organization 

(other than a recognized financial institution) citizenship information, and copies of the personal or corporate 

financial statements of the individual or organization should also be provided. 

4. Do Fund 1 and Fund II invest in other entities? Please describe.
# C_2022405EN.01006201.xml

| 21.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 405/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 405/62

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10870 – CAPVEST / NATRA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 405/06)

On 20 September 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10870. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10870. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 2.2



                                   UNDERTAKING

     First Merchants Corporation hereby undertakes to furnish supplementally to
the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request a copy of the Disclosure
Letters referenced in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agreement of Reorganization and
Merger between First Merchants Corporation and Lafayette Bancorporation dated
October 14, 2001.
#### KIGHT v. STATE.

No. 18751.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1937.

J. M. Parker, of Gorman, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

.Conviction for a misdemeanor; punishment being assessed at a fine of $100.

Omitting the formal parts, the counts of the complaint and information on which the conviction was based read as follows: “In the county of Comanche and State of Texas, Mrs. W. L. Kight and M. L. Kight did then and there unlawfully pqssess for the purpose of sale eleven pints of whisky, the same then and there being a liquor containing alcohol in excess of one-half of one per centum by volume, the possession of such liquor for the purpose of sale in *259Comanche County, Texas, having been theretofore and was then prohibited in said •Comanche County, Texas, by the laws of said State.”

It is not sufficiently alleged that the sale of intoxicating liquor had been prohibited ■in Comanche county. It should have been averred that an election to determine whether the sale should be prohibited had been held under an order of the commissioners’ court for that purpose. Also it was essential to allege that the commissioners’ court canvassed the election returns and declared the result. Again, an essential averment was that the result had been published as required by the law in force at the time of the election. See Jack Kelly v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 98 S.W.(2d) 998, delivered November 18, 1936.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022241EN.01002701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 24.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/27 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10672 – VISTA / ELLIOTT / CITRIX SYSTEMS / TIBCO)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 241/13)

1.

On 16 June 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022241EN.01002701-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Vista Equity Partners Management (‘Vista’, USA), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Elliott Investment Management L.P. (‘Elliott’, USA), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Citrix Systems Inc. (‘Citrix’, USA), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | TIBCO Software Inc. (‘TIBCO’, USA), controlled by Vista |

Vista and Elliott will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Citrix and TIBCO.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Vista is an investment firm focused on enterprise software, data and technology-enabled solutions. |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Elliott is an investment firm active across a wide range of sectors. |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Citrix is an enterprise software company providing digital workspace solutions, general work solutions and app delivery and security solutions. |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | TIBCO is an intelligence software company providing infrastructure and analytical software. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022241EN.01002701-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10672 – VISTA / ELLIOTT / CITRIX SYSTEMS / TIBCO

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022241EN.01002701-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022241EN.01002701-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
#### R. Fred BROWN, Appellant, v. Owen M. MURRAY, Receiver, Appellee.

No. 11618.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Dec. 2, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1934.

H. D. Payne, of Eloydada, for appellant.

John W. Pope, Sr., Lynn B. Milam, and Pat J. Howe, all of Dallas, for appellee.

BOND, Justice.

Tbis record discloses an analogous situation to that in tbe case of J. T. Kirk, Appellant, v. Owen M. Murray, Receiver, Appellee, 67 S.W.(2d) 385, tbis day decided by this court, involving paving certificates of the same series issued by tbe same municipality, in which we held that the receiver’s cause of action is amenable to the venue statutes of this state (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 1995), and the conclusion therein reached is applicable to the contentions here raised. On'the strength of our holding' in the above-cited case, the judgment of the lower court is' reversed and remanded, appellant’s plea of privilege is sustained, and the suit transferred to the district court of Floyd county, in accordance with the relating statutes.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Table 9. Cost Effectiveness of MACT Floors: Overall and by Subcategory Appendix A

Table 8. Cost Effectiveness of MACT Floors: Overall and by Subcategory

A. Compliance by Additional Control Only

Subcategory Total Annual Cost 

($/yr)

Total Emission 

Reductions (tpy)

Cost Effectiveness ($/tpy 

pollutant reduced)

Energy recovery unit - Liquid/Gas $7,859,052 2,936 $2,677

Energy recovery unit - Solids $148,464,875 8,607 $17,249

Incinerator $17,051,800 292 $58,374

Small, remote $2,901,032 7 $388,794

Waste-burning kiln $108,616,047 22,564 $4,814

Overall $284,892,806 34,406 $8,280

B. Compliance or Most Inexpensive Disposal Alternative

Subcategory Total Annual Cost 

($/yr)

Total Emission 

Reductions (tpy)

Cost Effectiveness ($/tpy 

pollutant reduced)

Energy recovery unit - Liquid/Gas $7,859,052 2,936 $2,677

Energy recovery unit - Solids $148,464,875 8,607 $17,249

Incinerator $3,645,704 479 $7,606

Small, remote $1,752,227 7 $234,832

Waste-burning kiln $108,616,047 22,564 $4,814

Overalla

$270,337,904 34,593 $7,815

a - emissions adjusted to account for landfill flare emissions from gas generated from diverted waste

Note:

Total Annual Cost is derived from calculations described previously in this memo.

Total Emission Reductions are derived in the CISWI Emission Reductions Memo.