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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6851

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DAVID BURNSIDE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:05-cr-00586-RDB-1; 1:15-cv-00020-RDB)

Submitted: October 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Burnside, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Burnside seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 

Burnside 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 20, 2007
 ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS L.P.
  Delaware
    
    1-32610
    
    13-4297064(State or Other Jurisdiction of
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (I.R.S. EmployerIncorporation or Organization)
    
    
    
    Identification No.)1100 Louisiana, 10thFloor, Houston, Texas
    
    
    
    77002(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    
    
    (Zip Code)
 (713) 381-6500
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Principal OfficersItem 7.01. Regulation FD DisclosureItem 9.01. Financial Statements and ExhibitsSIGNATURESPress Release    Table of Contents  
 Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment
of Principal Officers.
          1




---



##### Table of Contents



Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.
   
 Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (d) Exhibits.
 ExhibitNumber
    
    Exhibit10.1
    
    EPE Unit II, L.P. Agreement of Limited Partnership
dated December 5, 2006 (filed as Exhibit 10.13 to the
2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by Enterprise
Products Partners L.P. on February 28, 2007).99.1
    
    Press release issued on July 23, 2007.
 2




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS L.P.By:
    
    EPE Holdings, LLC,its General PartnerDate: July 26, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Michael J. KnesekName:
    
    Michael J. KnesekTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President, Controller and PrincipalAccounting Officer of EPE Holdings, LLC
 3




---



##### Table of Contents



ExhibitNumber
    
    Exhibit10.1
    
    EPE Unit II, L.P. Agreement of Limited Partnership
dated December 5, 2006 (filed as Exhibit 10.13 to the
2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by Enterprise
Products Partners L.P. on February 28, 2007).99.1
    
    Press release issued on July 23, 2007.
| 1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, 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 period ended March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 20, 2011                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                          |
| /s/ Henry Ender                                                               |
| Henry EnderPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |
# Integrated Fuel Cycle Section

## ORNL's Integrated Fuel Cycle Section provides world-leading fission fuel cycle capabilities that underpin reactor deployment and operation.

### Contact

LeighR Martin

martinlr@ornl.gov

## Current Research

## News

Rose Montgomery to take over Women in Nuclear X/Twitter account today

## News

ORNL hosts IAEA Lise Meitner professional program for women in nuclear reactor modeling and simulation 

## News

Distinguished researcher joins prestigious group for women leaders in nuclear sector

## News

Martin elected Fellow of American Chemical Society
**EXHIBIT
        32**
 
 **Certification
        of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**
 **Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350**
 
 
 In
        connection with the quarterly report on Form 10Q-SB of Bibb Corporation
        (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
        date
        hereof (the Report), I, Judson Bibb, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify,
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
        belief:
 
 (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 results of operations of Registrant.
 
 
  Date:
        May
        12,
        2008 **BIBB
        CORPORATION**
 
 /s/
        Judson Bibb
 By:
        Judson Bibb, President,
 Chief
        Executive Officer, Secretary,
 Treasurer,
        Chief Financial Officer
 and
        Principal Accounting Officer
#### HIDALGO COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 v. VAN HORN et ux.

No. 1551—6348.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

July 3, 1935.

Neal A. Brown and Brown & Bader, all of Edinburg, for plaintiff in error.

J. F. Carl and J. E. Leslie, both of Mc-Allen, for defendants in error.

TAYLOR, Commissioner.

Suit was by Jay Van Horn and wife against the Hidalgo County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1. Trial was by the court with the aid of a jury, resulting in a judgment for defendant water improvement district. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded the case upon alleged error of-the trial judge in giving a supplemental instruction to the jury in the form of an answer to an inquiry propounded by the jury during its deliberations. 51 S.W.(2d) 641.

It is unnecessary to state the facts of the case other than those made the basis of plaintiff in error’s first assignment of error the assignment upon which the writ was granted. Defendants in error appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals by way of writ of error. Their amended motion for new trial in the trial court was overruled August 20, 1931, and on that day the writ of error bond was filed. On August 25, writ of error service was had upon the improvement district. On November 18, 1931, more than sixty days after service on the writ of error, Van Horn and wife filed a motion in the Court of Civil Appeals requesting additional time within which to file transcript and statement of facts. The motion was granted. Plaintiff in error in its motion for rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals complains of the action of the court in granting the motion, moved to strike the transcript and statement of facts, and for an affirmance on certificate. The motion for rehearing was overruled, the court being of the view it came too late. 51 S.W.(2d) 642.

Plaintiff in error’s first assignment complains of the action of the court in granting the motion extending the time for filing the transcript. The assignment must be sustained. The case is controlled by Hunter v. Moore, 122 Tex. 583, 62 S.W.(2d) 97, opinion upon certified question; and by Reese et al. v. Owens et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 48 S.W.(2d) 697, affirmed in memorandum decision, opinion adopted by the Supreme Court, 123 Tex. 493, 72 S.W.(2d) 1113.

Plaintiff in error prays for a reversal of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, and for rendition of such *700judgment by the Supreme Gciurt as the law requires. It is held in Red et al. v. Bounds et al., 122 Tex. 614, 63 S.W.(2d) 544, in an adopted opinion, that if the sixty-day period provided in article 1839 (as amended by Acts 1931, c. 66) for filing transcript is allowed to expire without a motion being filed within the period to extend the time, the right to affirmance on certificate becomes absolute. Plaintiff in error was entitled to have its motion for rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals praying for affirmance on certificate granted.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed, and judgment is here rendered affirming the case on certificate.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
Exhibit
32.2





Certification of Principal
Financial Officer


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 Plastron Acquisition Corp. II (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Rapp, 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; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Michael RappMichael
      RappPrincipal
      Financial OfficerMay 14,
    2010
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES

1510 14thStreet, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-7158 Phone (916) 447-4947 Fax

MEMBERS

Humboldt Bay Harbor District

Port of Hueneme

Port of Long Beach

Port of Los Angeles

Port of Oakland

Port of Redwood City

Port of Richmond

Port of San Diego

Port of San Francisco

Port of Stockton

Port of West Sacramento

OFFICERS

Wayne Darbeau

President

Monique Moyer

Vice President

Dianna L. Baker

Treasurer

Timothy N. Schott

Executive Secretary

January 9,2014

Docket Management Facility

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)

West Building, Ground Floor, Room WJ 2-140 .:

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE ','. .;

Washington, DC 20590-0001 ,. '"

"

-- •• - • • d

'-'--'";;-' ..

.,:--'

<. .; " • ~ •

. ,-,

RE: USDOT Survey on Projects of National and Regional Significance

DOT Docket ID 2013-0056

Dear Sir .or Madam:

The California Association.ofPort.Authorities (qAPA) is ,pleased to provide comments on the

USDOT Survey on Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS). CAP A is comprised

of California's eleven publicly-owned, commercial seaports and is dedicated to maintaining a

vigorous and vital port industry in service to the state and the nation. Presently, over 40% of the

total containerized cargo entering the United States arrives at our member ports, and almost 30%

ofthe nation's exports flow.throughportsinthe Golden State ... ' .

The PNRS program is critical to securing an efficient and reliable national freight system. As the

USDOT develops its survey on Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS), CAPA

recommends that the USDOT:

• Encourage States to take a "bottoms up" approach, including consultation with

motropolitan plAnning orgAnbAtions And port authorities. This can be modeled

. '; .

after a successful approach used in California whereby priorities were established and

projects selected in collaboration with local agencies and organizations.
,-

..-- - -..

• Consider identifying critical gateways and corridors, connected by the National

Freight Network, in which PNRS would be located, and used as the basis for

selecting the highest priority PNRS

Give added consideration to projects previously designated PNRS under

SAFETEA-LU.

•

• Encourage inclusion of PNRS in national freight planning efforts. This includes

consideration ofPNRS in deliberations underway by the USDOT Freight Policy

Council and the National Freight Advisory Committee.

---------

Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me, at (916) 444-7158 or email at

tschott@schottlites.com with questions, concerns, or for further discussion.

im Schott

xecutive Director

cc: Brian Kelly, State Transportation Agency
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4737

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES ALEXANDER PINEIRO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR04-449)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter D. Ward, LAW OFFICE OF PETER D. WARD, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellant. Michael Joseph Leotta, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charles Alexander Pineiro appeals the district court's

judgment sentencing him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment

following his guilty plea to two counts of fraud in connection with

access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (2000). His

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view,

there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Pineiro has been

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has

not done so. The United States argues that this court must enforce

the waiver of appellate rights provision in Pineiro’s plea

agreement. We agree.

This Court reviews de novo the validity of a waiver of

the right to appeal. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496

(4th Cir. 1992). Whether such a waiver is knowing and intelligent

depends upon the facts and circumstances surrounding its making,

including the defendant's background, experience, and conduct.

United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 1992). A

waiver is ineffective if the district court fails to question the

defendant about it, United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68

(4th Cir. 1991), unless other evidence in the record shows that the

waiver was informed and voluntary. Davis, 954 F.2d at 186.

Here, Pineiro’s waiver was clearly knowing and voluntary.

The details of the waiver were clearly set forth in the written
- 3 -

plea agreement, which Pineiro had read, discussed with his

attorney, and understood. He was twenty-five, a high school

graduate, and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol when he

entered his guilty plea. The district judge questioned him about

the waiver of his appellate rights, and Pineiro stated that he

understood the waiver.

In his plea agreement, Pineiro reserved the right to

appeal a departure from his guideline range. His sentence was

within the guidelines range. On appeal, Pineiro’s counsel raises

the issue of whether Pineiro is entitled credit for time spent in

state custody , an issue within the scope of the appellate waiver.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the waiver provision in

the plea agreement.

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 decision process.

DISMISSED
# 5>to4Chambg r

(2_^^ ^ O F COMMERC E OQ^-CS'V - 

### 9-00 0 -?9S C -^ARTMENTO F

. AMSPORTAJiO

N ^

. KE t OPERMION S 

### n \FEB- 2 P!2 ^ 1 3

Januar y 31 , 201 1 To : Denni s Devane y Chief , EAS , Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s 40 0 Sevent

h Street , S.W . Roo m640 1 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Th e Shoal s Chamber

o f Commerc e recommend s Gulfstrea mInternational Airlin e to fiilfill th e EA S contrac t

fo r th e Northwes t

Alabam aRegiona

l airport . W e believ e Gulfstrea

moffer s th e bes t

airlin e servic e fo

r MS L fo r variou s reasons : Gulfstrea mi s aftilly certifie d FAA Par t 12 1 Ai r Carrier wit h a n excellent

safet y record . I

t wil l operate atwin-engin e pressurize d turb o pro p wit h 1 9 seats . Sinc e Gulfstrea mwil l dedicate tw o aircraf

t o n thi s route , operational readines s shoul d b e high . We believ e Gulfstrea mha s th e highes t

possibility o f

developin g arelationshi p wit h Delt aAirline s whic h wil l develo p int o seamles s ticketin g an d baggag e handlin g fo

r our users . Gulfstream' s presentatio n wa s excellen t an d w e believ e thei r

long-ter mpla n offer s th e greates t possibilit y fo r succes s int o th e fiiture . Th e Chamber

believe s tha

t w e hav e gon e throug h th e proces s in afai r an d equitabl e manner . Al l ai r

carrier s ha d equa

l opportunit

y to presen t

thei r progra mto th e committe e an d al l member s too k

a n open-minde d approac h t o th e selectio n process . Shoul d yo u hav e an y question s pleas e contac t me a t 256-764-466 1 o r

e-mai l a t steveh@shoalschamber.com . Stephe n Hol t President

2 0 Hightowe r Plac e P.O . Box 133 1 Florence , A L 35631-133 1

(256 ) 764-466 1 Fa x (256 ) 766-901 7 www.shoalschamber.co m Full y Aca-edite d b

y th e U.S . Chambe r

o f Commerc e
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

I, Kevin Samuelson, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed thisamended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Infor, Inc.; and 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain 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 thisreport. 

 

Date: July 24, 2019
   
/s/ KEVIN SAMUELSON
   
Kevin Samuelson
   
*Chief Financial Officer*
**
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 on Form 10-Q for the three-month period
ending October 31, 2009 of Barricode, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Tom Delaney, Chairman, President 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.


 /s/ Tom Delaney
 __________________________________________________
 Tom Delaney

 President, Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer,
 Principal Financial Officer and Director


Date: December 21, 2009
EX-31Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I,Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of theWFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-LC5 (the "Exchange Act periodicreports");

 

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances ofnoncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report onForm 10-K.

 

Ingiving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, asTrustee, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor, CoreLogicCommercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant,National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC, as Special Servicer for the 100 Church Street Mortgage Loan,Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for the 100 Church StreetMortgage Loan, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor for the 100 ChurchStreet Mortgage Loan, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., asServicing Function Participant for the 100 Church Street Mortgage Loan, andNational Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant for the 100 ChurchStreet Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated:October 31, 2019

 

 

/s/Anthony Sfarra

 

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)