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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7181

WILLIE ANDRE BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EDDIE LEE PEARSON, Warden, Sussex II State

Prison,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CA-03-606)

Submitted: December 10, 2003 Decided: December 29, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Andre Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Andre Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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 his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Brown 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
**Exhibit      32.2**

**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 SFH I Acquisition Corp. (the      "Company")      on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ajay      Gupta, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.      906      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|                                   |                                                            |                          |
|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Date:                November 14, 2008 |                                                                 | /s/                Ajay Gupta |
|                                   | Ajay                GuptaChief                Financial Officer |

----
# Official Journal C 50/28 F

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 50 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4928 February 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 50

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4928 February 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 050/1 | Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 050/1

Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Sidney ADAMI, Jr., alias Sidney Adams, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 20754.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1939.

McLean & Daly, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Upon appellant’s plea of guilty of the offense of burglary, and the waiver of a trial by jury, the court assessed his penalty at six years confinement in the penitentiary.

Since his appeal to this court was perfected, the appellant has filed a written re•quest, verified by his affidavit, asking for the privilege of withdrawing his appeal. The request is granted and the appeal ordered dismissed.
#### HUFSTEDLER et al. v. GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO.

No. 8102.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

May 1, 1935.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 1935.

Chas. Nordyke, of Lubbock, for appellants.

Jno. B. Daniel, of Temple, and Critz & Woodward, of Coleman, for appellee.

BAUGH, Justice.

In the interest of brevity and to avoid confusion, we have concluded, upon consideration of appellee’s motion for rehearing, to withdraw our former opinion herein and to substitute this opinion in lieu .thereof.

Suit was by appellee against S. M. Huf-stedler and others upon notes executed by Hufstedler to the Temple Trust Company and acquired by appellee through assignment, and for foreclosure of deed of trust liens on 320 acres of land in Lubbock county, Tex. The defenses urged, among others, were that said contracts were usurious. The instruments involved were essentially, if not identically, the same as those held not to be usurious in Walker v. Temple Trust Company (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W. (2d) 826, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 80 S.W. (2d) 935. The contentions as to usury here urged by appellants are, on the authority of the Walker Case, therefore overruled.

Appellants urge, however, that the trial court’s judgment is fundamentally erroneous wherein it directed that if any surplus remained after payment of appellee’s judgment, costs, etc., one-half of such surplus be paid to Hufstedler and the other half to H. H. Sides, because no such relief 5 was asked for in the pleadings. This contention is not sustained. S. M. Huf-stedler was the original maker of the notes and deeds of trust on the 320 acres. Thereafter he conveyed one-half of said lands to one Patman, ’who assumed payment of one-half of the debt to Temple Trust Company. Patman then conveyed same to H. H. Sides, who assumed payment of one-half of said debt. Patman was not made a party defend*760ant, and Sides did not answer. Hufstedler, however, sought no relief against Sides by cross-action or otherwise. Personal judgment was rendered only against Hufsted-ler, but foreclosure was awarded as against all defendants. Only the Hufstedlers have appealed.

It is true that Sides asked for no relief, but he was a party defendant over whose interest in the land the trial court had jurisdiction. The undisputed evidence showed that at the time of the trial Sides had the legal title to one-half of said lands through proper conveyances, subject to the superior lien thereon of appellee. Any surplus, therefore, arising from sale of said lands under foreclosure of the mortgage, after payment of appellee’s debt, costs, etc., would represent an equity of redemption. As between Hufstedler and Sides, the title of Sides to the one-half purchased by him was superior to any right therein of Huf-stedler, and he succeeded to the original mortgagor’s equity of redemption as to the lands so conveyed to him. 42 C. J. 314, and cases cited. Under plaintiff’s pleadings, therefore, and the undisputed evidence, even though Sides did not answer, the trial court’s judgment was correct, and it will be affirmed.

Affirmed.
Circle ‘Round Your Benefits
 

How to Get the Most Value from the Programs 


June 2017

 

 

 

The intent of this diagram is to provide 

you with a general understanding of 

how the Federal Employees Health 

Benefits (FEHB) Program, the Federal 

Employees Dental and Vision Insurance 

Program (FEDVIP) and the Federal 

Flexible Spending Account Program 

(FSAFEDS) work together. For specific 

information on each Program, visit 

www.opm.gov/insure. FEHB 

Comprehensive medical insurance 

Dental benefits may be included 

Vision benefits may be included 

FEHB and FSA 

Save money on eligible out-of-pocket 

expenses. When you have FEHB and an 

FSA, you can use money in your FSA 

to pay for your eligible FEHB 

out-of-pocket expenses (such as 

copayments and coinsurance) 

and qualified medical costs 

and health care expenses 

that your FEHB may 

not cover (such as 

chiropractic or 

hearing 

aids). 

 FEHB and FEDVIP 

 Lower your out-of-pocket costs on 

dental and vision expenses with FEDVIP 

 coverage in addition to FEHB 

coverage. Your FEHB plan will be 

 the first payer for any 

dental and/or vision benefit 

payments they may 

also cover. FEHB, FEDVIP, and FSA 

Save money on eligible out-of-pocket dental and vision 

expenses. When you have FEHB, FEDVIP, and an FSA, your 

FEHB plan will be the first payer of any benefit payments. 

You can use your FSA to pay for any eligible out-of-pocket 

expenses not covered by your FEHB or FEDVIP plan. 

FSA and FEDVIP 

Save money on eligible out-of-pocket dental and vision

 expenses after FEDVIP payments. When you have an 

FSA and FEDVIP, you can use money in your FSA 

to pay for your eligible FEDVIP out-of-pocket 

expenses (such as copayments and 

coinsurance) and eligible expenses 

that your FEDVIP plan 

may not cover. 

FSAFEDS 

Save money using tax-free 

dollars. You can put aside $100

to $2600 in pre-tax dollars per 

year to pay for eligible health care 

services and items for you and 

your family that are not paid 

by your health, dental, or 

vision insurance. 

*Information on a

Dependent Care FSA is at 

www.FSAFEDS.com 

FEDVIP

 Dental - comprehensive 

dental insurance (such as free 

 semi-annual cleanings),

 and/or 

Vision - comprehensive vision 

insurance (such as yearly 

eye exam)
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland ) ASBCA No. 63111

)

Under Contract No. W912ER

- 11

- D

- 0010 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Robert C. Niesley, Esq.

Rebecca S. Glos, Esq.

Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P

Irvine, CA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Rebecca L. Bockmann, Esq.

Michael E. Taccino, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys

U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East

Winchester, VA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: July 6 , 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63111

, Appeal of Fidelity and

Deposit Company of Maryland , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: July 6, 2023 TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT

TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Power Medical Interventions, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, MichaelP. Whitman, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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.

 
|   | /s/ Michael P.  Whitman                |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Michael P.  Whitman                    |   |
|   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |   |

 

December 4, 2007

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 81084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23146]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, 
comments received will be made available without change and will not be 
modified to remove personal or business information including 
confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments 
should not include any information such as confidential information 
that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than November 6, 2024.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Karen Smith, Director, Mergers & 
Acquisitions) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cd8ea2a0a0a8a3b9bee3acbdbda1a4aeacb9a4a2a3be8da9aca1e3abbfafe3a2bfaa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9eac6c4c4ccc7ddda87c8d9d9c5c0cac8ddc0c6c7dae9cdc8c587cfdbcb87c6dbce">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Liberty Capital Bancshares, Inc., Addison, Texas; to acquire 
Southwestern Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Texas 
Heritage Bank, both of Boerne, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-23146 Filed 10-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)





(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Yongye International, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: May 9, 2011
By:
/s/ Zishen WuZishen WuPresident and CEODated: May 9, 2011
By:
/s/ Sam YuSam YuChief Financial Officer
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 17705.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 27, 1935.

J. A. Johnson, of Stephenville, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for transportation of whisky; punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

Pending appeal, the law (Pen.Code 1925, art. 666 et seq., as amended) under which conviction was had has been repealed. See Acts 44th Leg. 2d Called Sess. § 49, article 1, Liquor Control Act (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666—49), and Guy Meadows v. State *493(Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 481, opinion this date.

The judgment is reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

RYAN ANDREW CONOVER , Petitioner

,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Respondent

.

No. 4D 22

- 315

[ June 8, 2022 ]

Petition for writ of mandamus to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jeffrey Dana Gillen , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2021

- CF

- 002648

- A XXX

- MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender

, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahas see , and Sorraya M. Solages

- Jones, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

P ER C URIAM

.
In this petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioner seeks review of an order striking his motion to dismiss asserting a claim of immunity under section 776.032, Florida Statutes, as untimely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c). Mandamus does not lie to review a trial court’s ruling for legal error or to compel the court to rule in a certain

way. Smith v. Lambdin , 971 So. 2d 209, 21 0 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea , 170 So. 3d 125, 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). A petition for writ of certiorari would have been the proper vehicle to seek review of the trial court’s ruling. See Jefferson v. State , 264 So. 3d 1019, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Rogers v. State , 301 So. 3d 1083, 1083

- 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); Casanova v. State

, 335 So. 3d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Corbett v. State , No. 5D21

- 3166, 2022 WL 1509106, at *2 (Fla. 5th DCA May 13, 2022). However, we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition as a petition for writ o f certiorari because it was filed more than thirty days after rendition of the trial court’s order. Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h), 9.100(c)(1); see also Decktight Roofing Servs., Inc. v. Amwest2 Sur. Ins. , 841 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Petition dismissed.

D AMOORGIAN , C IKLIN and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit      32.2**

**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 MAP IV Acquisition, Inc. (the “Company”)      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence E.      Koehler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.      906      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|                                 |                                                                  |                                         |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| August                      13, 2007 |                                                                       | /s/                      Lawrence E. Koehler |
|                                 | Lawrence                      E. Koehler                              |
|                                 | Principal                      Financial                      Officer |

----
-  View a hi-res version of this image                        CCSD researchers developed a novel uncertainty-aware framework MatPhase to predict material phases of electrodes from low contrast SEM images                    Read more 
                          -  View a hi-res version of this image                        We released two open-source datasets named GDB-9-Ex and ORNL_AISD-Ex that provide calculations of electronic excitation energies and their associated oscillator strengths based on the time-dependent density-functional tight-binding (TD-DFTB) method.                     Read more 
                          -  View a hi-res version of this image                        Visual analytics tool plucks elusive patterns from elaborate datasets                    Read more 
                          -  View a hi-res version of this image                        A team of researchers from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) developed a novel architecture for a hybrid quantum-classical neural network.                     Read more 

# Computer Science and Mathematics Division

The Computer Science and Mathematics Division (CSMD) is ORNL's premier source of basic and applied research in high-performance computing, applied mathematics, and intelligent systems. Basic and applied research programs are focused on computational sciences, intelligent systems, and information technologies.

Our mission includes working on important national priorities with advanced computing systems, working cooperatively with U.S. industry to enable efficient, cost-competitive design, and working with universities to enhance science education and scientific awareness. Our researchers are finding new ways to solve problems beyond the reach of most computers and are putting powerful software tools into the hands of students, teachers, government researchers, and industrial scientists.

### Contact

MichaelL Parks

parksml@ornl.gov

## Current Research

## News

Six ORNL scientists receive Distinguished Inventor honor

## News

Vetter, co-authors win Test of Time Award at annual supercomputing conference

## News

Six ORNL scientists elected fellows of American Association for the Advancement of Science

## News

ORNL, partners receive more than $4 million to advance AI control of complex systems