alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6487** 

TERRY D. DAVIS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. R.H. MAUNEY, Warden, Livesay Correctional Institution , Respondent

– Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF, Respondent

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 00307

- JFA )

Submitted : September 13 , 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Terry D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terry D. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)

. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is deb atable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling i s debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented3 in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid t he decisional process.
DISMISSED
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090426.eng.txt INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: PMN: 09-0426 Focus Ready Draft 7/20/2009 ENGINEER: Macek \ JAS PV (kg/yr): SUBMITTER: USE: OTHER USES: MSDS: Label: No

CRSS : Chemical Name: S-H20: 0.00248 g/L @

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090426.eng.txt (1 of 5) [3/15/2010 2:12:13 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090426.eng.txt VP: 7.2E-4 torr @ MW: Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:

Consumer Use: No SAT (concerns) (07/10/2009): Migration to groundwater: Moderate PBT rating: P1B2T1 Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1A NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090426.eng.txt (2 of 5) [3/15/2010 2:12:13 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090426.eng.txt

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: None. EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090426.eng.txt (3 of 5) [3/15/2010 2:12:13 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090426.eng.txt INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: PMN: 09-0426 USE:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090426.eng.txt (4 of 5) [3/15/2010 2:12:13 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090426.eng.txt

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090426.eng.txt (5 of 5) [3/15/2010 2:12:13 PM]
<PAGE>   1
 
                                 RESTRAC, INC.
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       THREE MONTHS   NINE MONTHS
                                                                       ------------   -----------
                                                                          ENDED JUNE 30, 1997

<S>                                                                    <C>            <C>
Net Loss (in thousands)..............................................   $     (280)   $     (923) 
                                                                        ==========    ==========
Weighted Average Shares of Common Stock Outstanding..................    8,115,898     8,022,502
Dilutive Options.....................................................           --            --
                                                                        ----------    ----------
Weighted Average Number of Common and Common Equivalent Shares
  Outstanding........................................................    8,115,898     8,022,502
                                                                        ==========    ==========
Net Loss Per Share...................................................   $    (0.03)   $    (0.12) 
                                                                        ==========    ==========
</TABLE>
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       THREE MONTHS   NINE MONTHS
                                                                       ------------   -----------
                                                                          ENDED JUNE 30, 1996

<S>                                                                    <C>            <C>
Net Income (in thousands)............................................   $      350    $      875
                                                                        ==========    ==========
Weighted Average Shares of Common Stock Outstanding..................    3,870,000     3,870,000
Dilutive Effect of Options Issued Prior to 5/10/95...................      337,098       344,647
Effect of Cheap Stock Options........................................      152,875       152,875
Conversion of Preferred Stock........................................    2,502,696     2,502,696
Shares Issuable in IPO to Fund Cumulative Dividends..................       51,728        51,728
                                                                        ----------    ----------
Weighted Average Number of Common and Common Equivalent Shares
  Outstanding........................................................    6,914,397     6,921,946
                                                                        ==========    ==========
Net Income Per Share.................................................   $     0.05    $     0.13
                                                                        ==========    ==========
</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 28, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-15260

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 92-00236-CR-J-25-JRK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HERLITZ M. VANZIE,

a.k.a. Stevie Wilburn,

a.k.a. Santonien Flowers,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(May 28, 2009)

Before BLACK, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
W. Charles Fletcher, appointed counsel for Herlitz M. Vanzie in this 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further

representation, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record

reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s denial of

§ 3582(c)(2) relief is AFFIRMED.

1

 Vanzie’s pro se Motion to Deny Ander’s Brief Filed by Court-appointed Counsel and 1

Motion to Substitute Counsel is denied.

2
# C_2023162EN.01000601.xml

| 5.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/6

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.103724

(2023/C 162/05)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 6.12.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.103724 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Sammeländerungsnotifizierung folgender Maßnahmen:SA.37973, SA.38916 SA.39954, SA.41364, SA.42292, SA.42333, SA.42766, SA.42803,SA.42806, SA.42896, SA.42921, SA.42954, SA.43409, SA.43902, SA.43911, SA.45200, SA.45484, SA.46079, SA.47157, SA.47239, SA.47736, SA.48837, SA.48936, SA.50262, SA.51221, SA.51683, SA.51958, SA.52289, SA.53504, SA.55264, SA.56723, SA.57368 |
| Legal basis | Gesetz über die Gemeinschaftsaufgabe ‘Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes’ (GAK-Gesetz — GAKG) |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Other |
| Form of aid | Direct grant, Subsidised services |
| Budget | Overall budget: 118 925 000 EUR |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | 12.12.2022 — 31.12.2024 |
| Economic sectors | AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Die Beihilfegewährung erfolgt durch die zuständigen Landesbehörden. |
| n/a |

Date of adoption of the decision

6.12.2022

Aid number

SA.103724

Member State

Germany

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Sammeländerungsnotifizierung folgender Maßnahmen:SA.37973, SA.38916 SA.39954, SA.41364, SA.42292, SA.42333, SA.42766, SA.42803,SA.42806, SA.42896, SA.42921, SA.42954, SA.43409, SA.43902, SA.43911, SA.45200, SA.45484, SA.46079, SA.47157, SA.47239, SA.47736, SA.48837, SA.48936, SA.50262, SA.51221, SA.51683, SA.51958, SA.52289, SA.53504, SA.55264, SA.56723, SA.57368

Legal basis

Gesetz über die Gemeinschaftsaufgabe ‘Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes’ (GAK-Gesetz — GAKG)

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Other

Form of aid

Direct grant, Subsidised services

Budget

Overall budget: 118 925 000 EUR

Intensity

Duration

12.12.2022 — 31.12.2024

Economic sectors

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING

Name and address of the granting authority

Die Beihilfegewährung erfolgt durch die zuständigen Landesbehörden.

n/a

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
Exhibit 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement andPost-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-36415 and 33-44380), the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-67606, 333-61624, 333-43890 and 333-36415), the Amendment No. 1 toRegistration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-104627), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.33-26442, 33-6141, 33-26443, 33-29144, 33-19012, 2-67317, 33-34363, 33-34362, 33-62648, 333-117382,333-42231 and 333-52175), and the Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 on Form S-8 to the RegistrationStatement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86061) of Phelps DodgeCorporation of our report dated March 7,2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6937

MR. DOUGLAS M. ROSEBY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MR. PAUL E. BUDLOW, et al.,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:10-cv-00417-AW)

Submitted: October 7, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Roseby, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas M. Roseby seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and has 

moved to place his appeal in abeyance. The order he seeks to 

challenge was entered by the district court on March 9, 2010. 

Roseby filed his notice of appeal, which was dated 

June 28, 2010, on July 2, 2010. Even giving Roseby the benefit 

of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), his notice of 

appeal was untimely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). In 

his notice, however, Roseby indicated that he was unaware of the 

district court’s dismissal order until June 21, 2010. Under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the time 

to file an appeal if: (1) the moving party did not receive 

notice of entry of judgment within twenty-one days after entry; 

(2) a motion to reopen the appeal period is filed within 180

days of entry of judgment or within fourteen days of receiving 

notice from the district court, whichever is earlier; and (3) no 

party would be prejudiced. We remand to the district court so 

it may determine whether Roseby is entitled to have his time to 

file an appeal reopened under Rule 4(a)(6). The record, as 

supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further

consideration. We also deny as moot Roseby’s motion to place 

his appeal in abeyance. 

REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001058632
<NAME> UCO MBA CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                       538
<INVENTORY>                                     42,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,205
<PP&E>                                          44,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,699
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               271,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  290,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022199EN.01000601.xml

| 17.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/6

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/797, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/754, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2019/796, concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States

(2022/C 199/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in the Annex to Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/797 (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/754 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 2019/796 (3), concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States.

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2019/797, and in Regulation (EU) 2019/796 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2019/796 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments.

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned lists should be reconsidered, before 14 January 2023, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 10 of Decision (CFSP) 2019/797 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 129 I, 17.5.2019, p. 13.

(2)  OJ L 138, 17.5.2022, p. 16.

(3)  OJ L 129 I, 17.5.2019, p. 1.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID JEROLD SHANK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, Health

Services Provider at A.S.P.C. Florence

- East Unit; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 16773

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 02572

- PGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

David Jerold Shank , an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argumen t. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 5 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 16773

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shank failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to wh ether defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his prostate condition

. See Crowley v. Bannister , 734

F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (supervisors can only be liable under § 1983 if they

are personally involved in a constitutional deprivation or if they i mplement a

constitutionally deficient policy); Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc. , 698 F.3d 1128, 1139

(9th Cir. 2012) ( municipal liability applies to suits against private entit ies under

§ 1983 if the entity acts under color of state law and the violation is ca used by a

policy, practice, or custom of the entity); Jett v. Penner , 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th

Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference entails a purposeful act or failure to respond and

harm caused by the act or failure to respond).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

We reject as unsupported by the record Shank’s contentions that d efendant

Ryan perjured himself, that defendant Ryan’s attorney perpetrated perjury, and that

Judge Rosenblatt was biased and prejudiced against Shank.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 Pentair Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John L. Stauch, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 27, 2013



/s/ John L. StauchJohn L. Stauch Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer