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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEROY SCOTT, JR., a/k/a Roy Scott,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00020-MSD-LRL-1; 2:16-cv-00005-

MSD)

Submitted: September 18, 2018 Decided: September 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Scott, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Alexander Layne, Special Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Scott, Jr., 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 Scott 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC

EXHIBITS

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Cingular Wireless LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard G. Lindner, 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, to
the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) 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.

                                        By: /s/ Richard G. Lindner
                                            ------------------------------
                                                 Richard G. Lindner
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 Date: February 24, 2004
### M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 of NUECES COUNTY, GREET INGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 20th day of November, 2014 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Mary Fowler, App ellant,

v. Gus Montis, Argiro Investments, LLC Appellee s

. CAUSE NO. 13

- 13

- 00581

- CV (Tr.Ct.No. 2013

- CV

- 61603

- 5)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal

, vacates the county court’s judgment and renders judgment dismiss ing the suit

. The Court orders the judgment VACATED and renders judgment DISMISS ED . Costs of

the appeal are adjudged against the appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 20, 2014

.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof aff ixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 3rd day of February, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
EXHIBIT 21
<TABLE>

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                          DECEMBER 31, 1998
<CAPTION>

                                                          State or Country
                   Name                                   of Incorporation
<S>                                                       <C>
Domestic
   AHP Subsidiary Holding Corporation                       Delaware
   American Cyanamid Company                                Maine
   Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Incorporated                Delaware
   Berdan Insurance Company                                 Vermont
   Cyanamid Agricultural de Puerto Rico, Inc.               New Jersey
   Cyanamid International Corporation Limited               Delaware
   Genetics Institute, Inc.                                 Delaware
   Immunex Corporation                                      Washington
   Lederle Parenterals, Inc.                                New Jersey
   Lederle Piperacillin, Inc.                               New Jersey
   Route 24 Holdings, Inc.                                  Delaware
   Wyeth-Ayerst International Inc.                          New York
   Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                       New York
   Wyeth Nutritionals, Inc.                                 Delaware
   Wyeth-Whitehall Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                    Puerto Rico


Foreign
   AHP Finance B.V.                                         Netherlands
   AHP Manufacturing B.V.                                   Netherlands
   Cyanamid Agro                                            France
   Cyanamid de Argentina S.A.                               Delaware
   Cyanamid Agrar GmbH & Co. KG                             Germany
   Cyanamid Iberica, S.A.                                   Spain
   Cyanamid (Japan) Ltd.                                    Japan
   Cyanamid of Great Britain Limited                        Great Britain
   Cyanamid Quimica do Brasil Ltda.                         Brazil
   Cyanamid Taiwan Corporation                              Taiwan
   Dimminaco AG                                             Switzerland
   John Wyeth & Brother Limited                             Great Britain
   Laboratorios Wyeth-Whitehall Ltda.                       Brazil
   Wyeth (H.K.) Limited                                     Hong Kong
   Wyeth Australia Pty. Limited                             Australia
   Wyeth-Ayerst Canada Inc.                                 Canada
   Wyeth-Lederle                                            France
   Wyeth-Lederle S.p.A.                                     Italy
   Wyeth Lederle Portugal (Farma), Lda.                     Portugal
   Wyeth-Pharma GmbH                                        Germany
   Wyeth Philippines, Inc.                                  Philippines
   Wyeth S.A. de C.V.                                       Mexico

</TABLE>

There have been omitted from the above list the names of subsidiaries
which, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not
constitute a significant subsidiary.
Exhibit 99.5

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors of Resin Systems Inc.



We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:

─

our Auditors' Report dated March 12, 2008 on the consolidated balance sheets of Resin Systems Inc. (the Company") as at December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the consolidated statements of loss and deficit and cash flows for the years then ended;

─

our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 12, 2008 on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2007; and

─

our Comments by Auditors for US Readers on Canada-US Reporting Differences, dated March 12, 2008;

each of which is contained in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.



[exhibit995001.jpg]

Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Canada

March 12, 2008
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Advent Software, Inc.
|        | August 8, 2006 |                                                             | /s/ Graham V. Smith |   |
|--------|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|   |           | Graham V. Smith                                                  |
|   |           | Executive Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AdventSoftware, Inc. and will be retained by Advent Software, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
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 Annual Report of Wyeth (the "Company") on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 11, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Robert Essner, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



Dated:  March 11, 2005



                          By /s/        Robert Essner
                             ----------------------------------
                                        Robert Essner
                     Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 105 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs repays the misused benefits of veterans with fiduciaries, 

to establish an appeals process for determinations by the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs of veterans’ mental capacity, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Ms. BROWNLEY of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs repays the misused benefits 

of veterans with fiduciaries, to establish an appeals process for determinations by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of veterans’ mental capacity, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Veterans from 

5 Financial Fraud Act of 2017’’. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 105 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF MISUSED BENEFITS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6107(b) of title 38, 

3 United States Code, is amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘In any case 

5 in which a fiduciary described in paragraph (2)’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘In any case not covered by subsection (a) 

7 in which a fiduciary’’; 

8 (2) by striking paragraph (2); and 

9 (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para10 graph (2). 

11 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by sub12 section (a) shall apply with respect to the misuse of bene13 fits by a fiduciary occurring on or after the date of the 

14 enactment of this Act. 

15 SEC. 3. APPEALS FOR DETERMINATIONS OF MENTAL CA16 PACITY. 

17 Section 5501A of title 38, United States Code, is 

18 amended— 

19 (1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting 

20 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and 

21 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub22 section: 

23 ‘‘(b) APPEALS.—A determination under subsection 

24 (a) may be appealed in accordance with chapters 71 and 

25 72 of this title.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: WHITE ACRES GOOD

SAMARITAN RETIREMENT VILLAGE

and THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN

GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY,

 Relators.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00308-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN

 MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a). The parties represent to the Court that all matters involved in the petition for

writ of mandamus have been fully and finally resolved. Specifically, the parties have entered into

a stipulation agreeing to the arbitration of this case. The parties have complied with the requirements

of Rule 42.1(a)(2).

We have considered the cause on the motion and conclude that the motion should be granted.

We therefore dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. As the motion does not indicate the parties

have agreed otherwise, costs will be taxed against Relators. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

May 6, 2009

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E86]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECOGNIZING THE EFFORTS OF THOSE WHO SERVE THEIR COMMUNITIES ON MARTIN 
                            LUTHER KING DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 13, 2009

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National Service 
Day that is held on the third Monday of January each year, the same day 
that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday is observed.
  Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is well known for his peaceful march 
on Washington, D.C. where he delivered his famous ``I Have a Dream'' 
speech and other nonviolent protests. But as a minister and civil 
rights activist, his vision was to end discrimination and to improve 
the lives of all mankind. He focused on community organizing where he 
told others that they can make a change if they worked together.
  In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. it is important for people to 
get involved in their communities and give back to those in need. 
Volunteering at a food bank, helping to clean up a neighborhood, 
donating blood are simple ways that people can participate in National 
Service Day.
  It is time for us to get involved to help others and to improve our 
nation as a whole.

                          ____________________
```
Opinion issued September 29, 202 0

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 20 - 00106 - CV

——————————— RICHARD MORAW AND JAMES PERRY, TRUSTEES OF THE SCOTT

FAMI LY TRUS T (IRREVOCABLE) , Appella nt s V. KATHRYN MULLEN , Appell e e On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 102448 - CV
MEMORANDU M OPINION Appellant s , Richard Moraw and James Perry, Trustees of the Scott Family Tru st (I r revocable), have failed to timely file a brief. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6( a ) , 38. 8(a)
. After being n otified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant s notified the Court that no notice of appeal should have been filed and that the case2

sho uld be dismis sed. We dism iss the appeal for w ant of prosecution
. See T EX . R. A P P . P
. 38.8(a), 42.3 ( b ) , (c) , 43.2(f)
. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Co untiss
.
United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3457

|                                               |                         |
|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
| SECRETARY OF LABOR,                           |                         |
| Complainant,                                  |                         |
| v.                                            | OSHRC Docket No.21-0794 |
| US POSTAL SERVICE – CANOVANAS

POST OFFICE,   |                         |
| Respondent.                                   |                         |

BRIEFING NOTICE

With respect to Citation 1, Item 1, the parties are requested to brief whether the Secretary established that the cited standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(a)(3) (maintenance, safeguards, and operational features for exit routes), applies. Specifically, the parties should address whether the judge erred in finding that the door alleged to be obstructed was part of an “exit route.” See29 C.F.R. § 1910.34(c). The parties are advised that when the merits or characterization of an item are before the Commission on review, the appropriateness of the penalty is also subject to review. Accordingly, the parties may address the amount of the penalty ifthey sochoose.

All briefs are to be filed in accordance with Commission Rule 93.1 The first brief is to be filed within 40 days of this notice. A party not intending to file a brief must notify the Commission in writing within the applicable time for filingbriefs, andshall serve a copyonall other parties. The time for filing briefs (or similar notices of intent) of opposing parties shall commence on the date of service.

BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION

Dated:November 18, 2022/s/

John X. Cerveny

Executive Secretary

----

1 The Commission requests that all briefs include an alphabetical table of authorities with references to the pages on which they are cited, and that an asterisk be placed in the left-hand margin of the table to indicate those authorities on which the brief principally relies. The Commission also requests that copies of cited authority, other than statutes, case law, law journal articles and legal treatises, be provided to the Commission and to the opposing party. Parties should be cautioned that these materials will be considered only if appropriate.
#### In the Matter of Ricardo A. DiRose, Appellant, v Victor Herbert, as Superintendent of Collins Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 38]

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding to compel respondent, the Superintendent of Collins Correctional Facility, to comply with a directive of the Department of Correctional Services allowing petitioner to correspond with his codefendant. Supreme Court properly denied the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. In any event, there is no merit to the petition. Although petitioner was granted permission to correspond with his codefendant, the regulations provide that authorization for inmate-to-inmate correspondence may be withdrawn at any time when it is demonstrated and documented that the safety, security, or good order of a facility is jeopardized, or that the safety or well being of any individual is jeopardized (7 NYCRR 720.6 [d] [2]). Additionally, inmate-to-inmate correspondence must not be sealed; if it is, it may be opened and returned to the inmate sender (7 NYCRR 720.6 [e]). Petitioner has failed to include in the record those items that he claims were returned to him and has not provided an affidavit from his codefendant regarding those items sent by *853the codefendant that allegedly were not delivered to petitioner or were returned. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                      ADVANCED LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
        STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (In thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                         SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                  ----------------------------
                                                                      2003           2002
                                                                  -------------  -------------

<S>                                                                   <C>            <C>
Income (loss) before income taxes and minority interest               $ (6,155)      $ (1,127)
Interest expense                                                         3,420          2,789
Interest portion of rent expense                                           169            208
                                                                  -------------  -------------

     EARNINGS                                                         $ (2,566)      $  1,870
                                                                  =============  =============


Interest expense                                                      $  3,420       $  2,789
Interest capitalized                                                        18            107
Interest portion of rent expense                                           169            208
Preferred share accretion                                                  -              699
                                                                  -------------  -------------

     FIXED CHARGES                                                    $  3,607       $  3,803
                                                                  =============  =============


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                         -              0.5
                                                                  =============  =============
</TABLE>

For purposes of calculating the unaudited ratio of earnings to fixed charges,
earnings consist of income (loss) before provision for income taxes plus fixed
charges. Fixed charges consist of interest charges and amortization of debt
issuance costs, whether expensed or capitalized, the portion of rental expense
that is representative of interest, and preferred share accretion. For the three
months ended September 30, 2003, earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charge
requirements by $6,173. For the three months ended September 30, 2002, earnings
were inadequate to cover fixed charge requirements by $1,933.