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

No. 19
- 6262

DON NEWBY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv - 00714

- JAG

- RCY )

Submitted : May 16, 2019 Decided: May 21, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Don Cornelius Newby, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Don Newby seeks to appeal the district cour t’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C

. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure either to pay the filing fee or explain why he should be excused from paying the fee. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificat e of appealability. See 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 constitutional 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 debatable 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 is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constituti onal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. After filing this appeal, Newby paid the district court filing fee , and the district
court subsequently entered an order vacating its dismissal order and reinstating Newby’s § 2254 proceeding. Accordingly, we deny Newby’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss this appeal as moot. We dispense with oral a rgument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32

Section 1350 Certifications



STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fresca Worldwide Trading Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter June 30, 2009, I,   Robert Gates  , Chief Executive 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 June 30, 2009, 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 June 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  August 14, 2009

Fresca Worldwide Trading Corp.



By:

/s/ Joseph Meuse

Title

CEO
**Exhibit 32.0**

### ** **

 

### **CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADDEDBY**

# **SECTION906 OF THE**SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

 

**               **In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Bradford Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as addedby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.                                       The information contained in this Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial conditionand results of the Company as of and for the period covered by this Report.

 

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Dallas R. Arthur                  |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   | Dallas R. Arthur                      |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | November 30, 2007                     |

 

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ David L. Costello III                            |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | David L. Costello, III                               |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | November 30, 2007                                    |

 

 

----
#### SCROGUM v. STATE.

No. 18804.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1937.

Rollie Fancher, of Seymour, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, judge.

Conviction is for theft of cattle, punishment being two years in the penitentiary.

The indictment charges the offense. The record is here without statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condition, nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 17, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

131372 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MICHAEL COLTON, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Alexis Hall, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131372 COA: 268533 St. Clair CC: 05-001942-NH DEVKUMAR S. NANDAMUDI, M.D., a/k/a DEVELOPMENT S. NANDAMUDI, M.D., and CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE OF PORT HURON, Defendants-Appellants,

and

PORT HURON HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of September 26, 2006, the app lication for leave to appeal the April 28, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Washington v Sinai Hosp ital of Greater Detroit (Docket No. 130641). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on June 27, 2007, 478 Mich 412 (2007), the application is again considered and, it ap pearing to this Court that the case of Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445- 134446) is pending on appeal before this

Court and that the decision in that case ma y resolve an issue ra ised in the present application for leave to appe al, we ORDER that the applic ation be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.

l1010 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 17, 2007

Clerk
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0326

 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM089AD

757-54-0035, R4 --- 6/18/09

757-54-0035, R5 --- 6/9/11

757-54-0003 --- 12/14/84

757-54-0028 --- 3/31/94

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### SHEPPARD v. GILL et al.

No. 1933-6516.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Feb. 19, 1936.

Cunningham & Rabel, of Harlingen, and Kennedy Smith, of Edinburg, for plaintiff in error.

Brown & Bader and Rogers Kelley, all of Edinburg, Strickland, Ewers & Wilkins, of Mission, D. W. Glasscock, of Mercedes, and Bryce Ferguson, of Edinburg, for defendants in error.

HARVEY, Commissioner.

After due consideration of the opinion filed in this case by the Court of Civil Appeals (58 S.W.(2d) 168), said opinion is approved. The plaintiff in error contends that said court, in passing on the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s petition under the general *564demurrer interposed by defendants in error, Gill, and the surety on his official bond, should have taken into consideration fact averments contained in the separate answer filed by the codefendants of Gill and his surety. The contention is overruled. ' Gill and his surety are in nowise bound , by any of the fact averments contained in ) the answer of their codefendants. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals ' reversing the trial court’s judgment and remanding the cause is affirmed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Thomas L. Mitchell, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Noble Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: May 9, 2007   /s/ THOMAS L. MITCHELL Thomas L. Mitchell  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  of Noble Corporation
Exhibit 32.1





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Wind Energy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shouquan Sun, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: March 17, 2010





By:       /s/ Shouquan Sun


Shouquan Sun


President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22695]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 2, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 25, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 388 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-746, K2024-39.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22695 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Agustin Chavez, Jr June 6 , 2015 2572 Jimmy Taylor Dr. Perris, CA 92570 Cell ( 909 ) 2 25

- 2646 Email: augiechavez1@gmail.com U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 **RE: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of 2012** Attachments: 1 ) DJI Phantom 3 Professional

- User Manual , Set

- Up Guide, Safety Guidelines, and Photo

. 2 ) DJI Inspire 1

– User Manual , Set

- Up Guide, Safety Guidelines, and Photo

. Dear Sir or Madam, I , Agustin Chavez Jr., respectfully request an exemption /relief from FAA Reform Act o f 2012 for the purpose of conducting an Aerial Photography/Videography enterprise. In the operation of my small Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) I will o ffer photography, videography, cinematography, agricultural survey/assessment, mapping, inspections, and other flight operations as needed by clientele. I will maintain safe practices such as pre

- flight procedures, visual line of sight flying ( VLOS) , use of a Visual Observer ( VO), proper maintenance, and repair checklists of all UAS used . Also, upon granting of this request, Liability insurance will be obtained. Currently, this ruling not only creates financial costs and rules not conducive to business requirements, but also to future opportunities as the use of UAS ’ s continues to evolve , hopefully, leading to further economic growth

. As previously stated, a ll flight operations I conduct is visual l ine of s ight ( VLOS) and under 400' above ground level (AGL). The aircraft I use have GPS guidance and "return to home" safety features installed. The use of my UAS benefits the community at large due to less cost to consumers who use my services, the quality of images I can provide, and is MUCH safer than a full size counterpart (helicopter) or fixed wing (airplane). Use of my UA S also prevents possible danger to a pilot full size aircraft require. My flights would consist of using a DJI Phantom 3 Quad

- copter or a DJI Ins pire 1 Quad

- copter , dependent on the needs of the particul ar assignment contracted for. I have attached documents that support the quality, capability, reliability, safeguards installed , and specifications of the UAS I plan to use. This in total is my requ est for exemption. Respectfully submitted, Agustin Chavez, Jr.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Global Aviation Holdings Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert R. Binns,Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)        The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)        The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the datesand for the periods referred to in the Report.

 

 
| Date: November 24,  2010 | By:    | /s/ Robert R. Binns |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                               |   | Robert R. Binns          |
|                               |   | Chief Executive Officer  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GlobalAviation Holdings Inc. and will be retained by Global Aviation Holdings Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January

14 , 2020

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00642

- CV

CLEARCORRECT, INC., CLEARCORRECT HOLDING S, INC., AND STRAUMANN MANUFACTUR ING, INC. , Appellant s

V.

ZANE RUSSELL , Appe ll ee

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 62387

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 19, 2019. On December 30, 2019, appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex

. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.2

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sombrio Capital Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Bleeden, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1.The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ David BleedenDavid BleedenChief Executive Officer andChief Financial OfficerMarch 17, 2011
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6398

DAVID A. SUMRALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 378-MJG) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Sumrall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on February 15, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 16, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: David A. Sumrall appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Sumrall v. Maryland , No. CA-00-378-MJG (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2000). * 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
confidential







2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item
1123)



Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling
and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of September l , 2012 by and among UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp., as Depositor,
Mid land Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special
Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Operating Advisor and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, Certificate
Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian relating to the UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2012-C3 (UBS-Barclays 2012-C3)





The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto
Capita l Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:



| | l. | All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of
January l ,2018 to December 31 , 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
has been conducted under my supervision.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the terms of the Pooling Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there
has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has
been specifically identified herein.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Certified by: | /s/ Adam Singer                |  | Date: March 1, 2019
|------------- | ------------------------------ |  | -------------------
|              | Adam Singer, Managing Director |  |                    







confidential