alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (1)   | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ David A. Martin                                                                                                     |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | David A. MartinSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)    39 |
DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

DD 85-4.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor.

On June 12, 1985, this court publicly reprimanded respondent, John A. Connor II, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. Y, former Section 6(d) (now 6[B][5]). It now appearing to the court that copies of documents attached to the Agreed Stipulations of Fact, which were made part of the record that was filed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline with the Supreme Court in this matter, have been sealed by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in case No. 84CR-03-591, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by this court, *sua sponte,*that the copies of all documents attached to the Agreed Stipulations of Fact be, and hereby are, sealed.

Douglas, J., not participating.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, March 11, 2015 02:00 p.m. to March 11, 2015, 04:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 16, 2014, 79 FR 74734.                

The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting date from March 11, 2015 to April 08, 2015, and the Contact Person from Dr. Robert Bird to Dr. Sergei Radaev, Telephone Number: 240-276-6466. The location remains the same; however, the room has changed to 7W114. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: March 6, 2015.

Melanie J. Gray, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-05567 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6804 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HERBERT COUNCIL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (3:92-cr-00097-20; 3:06-cv-00110)

Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert Council, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Council seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

orders are 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 any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Council 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 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael L. Campbell, President of United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain 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 this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



Date:
March 30, 2005

| |  | By: |  | /s/MICHAEL L. CAMPBELLMichael L. Campbell
President
(Chief Executive Officer)
| |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Form 10-QSB for the period  ended as stated below and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               2,871
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,193,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,755,703
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,341,725
<PP&E>                                          10,548,647
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,963,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,781,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,908,646
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           135,800
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,781,128
<SALES>                                          2,564,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,564,781
<CGS>                                            1,921,875
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      520,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     9,144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (64,386)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     67,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 67,486
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        67,486
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 01 97 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RICHARD DENVER HINMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 13 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 7 2021

05/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0197
OFFICE OFTHE AlTORNEY GENERALOFT~ **AUSTIN**

Honorable George Ii.Sheppard comptro11e4r



### or PublloAooountr *urtln, T9U8
Dear sir:

Your h3ttw **or** 

### sept partnmat ior an opiniona thl right8 

### or the Eonorable Frank 

### or tha Zlth Judiolal Di panaatlon and expmlsee he 18 engaged in the Statea, 

### haolngbee 

### eti0m c0ard0r he St8xtsror oomduring the tlmr ae of th6 Ijnlted



### y ool8!aunleated

to us, Dlstriot Attorney **or**

to hia salary an Dlrtrlot Attornry uotod Into the aotiva 

### military mrvdown toUaroh 27, 1941, the effeot65, kote of the 47th Leglalature. ThSa question la anmverwl by our opinionNo. 0-S77S, 

### copy of whloh la enoloesd herewith. 

### Under the provlslonr Of 

### Boure Bill 

### Bo. 427, Aoto of the Regular Seaaion, 421~4 kglBlaturo, whloh wan in tull iOrOe and sirmat during theHonorabl8 Oeorga H. Shrppard,Page 2



### per104 **or** time involved in pour inquiry,Mr. Yartlci.88 a member **0r** tha Tara National Ouardwhile angag a8 suoh in the aotlva military servlcs of theUnltad Stataa, in rlrLd or coast dai8as8 training,ordarad or authorized undrr tha pro- ~lalons or law, 18 not antitled to oompsnaatlonduring th8 period or time ha la so sngagad rxoapt ror a par104 or tlae. not longer than twelvedays during ang.ona oalandar ysar, 8uoh twslro day period to be 

### in 118~ of any an4 all other taoatlonawith pay, As haratororaadvlsad,Mr. kfartln **i8** an

### tltlrd,**0r** 

### oour88, to oompenratlonfor thoar day8 when h8 18 

### not absrntfrom the diecharge or hi8 but188 a8 DietriotAttorney, en4 engaged in 

### riOi or ooa8t derense trsining.

The amandm8nt of Hourr BillNo. 427 Act8 Regular S888lon 

### 42n4Lsgisleturr, by Houea Bill No. 

### 745 or thr 47th Lsglslaturu,R8guler Sa88lon,made no ohangs in th8 lau 80 far a8 it8 sfreot upon Mr. Martin 18 oono8rn84. Th8 only purpo88 or the am8ndm8nt, and tho only ohangsmad8 in th8 Aot, ia to rell8vemember8 of the Leglrlatura froa th8 r8- 

### atrlotlonlimiting leaven of abaraoa

### withpap to tualva days in any on8 calendar gear. The othrr provlslon8 of ths Aot; 88 they apply to other Officer8 an4 amployea8 Oi th8 Stetr. or Texas an4 to any county or polltloal **~ub4ltlsion** thorrot 

### inoludlngmenlolpalltlae, ware 8lmply oontlnu84 in rull roroa 6nd 

### 6rrO0t. Yours very truly
APPROVEO SEFT. 23, 1941 /.s/ Gerald C. Kann AllPOI?NXYGENERALOPTEXAS

ATTORNEY GE!JJRALCF TSXAS By (8)R.3. Falrohlld 

### R. W. Falrahild

**.besi8tant** RWF:lIQ APPROVED OPINION COXbfITTEE 3Y BQl3CHAIRMAN .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6886

DAVID MEYERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

EDWARD WRIGHT, Warden; G.E.O. INC; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:16-cv-00005-REP-RCY)

Submitted: October 25, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Meyers appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice for 

failing to comply with a court order. We affirm.

A district court may dismiss an action based on a 

plaintiff’s failure to comply with any order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b). Where a litigant has ignored an express warning that 

noncompliance with a court order will result in dismissal, the 

district court should dismiss the case. See Ballard v. Carlson, 

882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). We review a decision to 

dismiss for failure to comply with a court order for abuse of 

discretion. Id.

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of 

discretion. Accordingly, we grant Meyers leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Robert E. Wolfe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Advanced Oxygen Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSBSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 11, 2007

/s/Robert E. Wolfe

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

                                                       Robert E. Wolfe

                                                       Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906 is retained by Advanced Oxygen Technologies, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

**CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER**

**PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Robert E. Wolfe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Advanced Oxygen Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSBSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 11, 2007

/s/ Robert E. Wolfe

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

                                                         Robert E. Wolfe

                                                         Treasurer

A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906 is retained by Advanced Oxygen Technologies, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
Exhibit 32



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 ISCO International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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 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/ JOHN THODE         
|John Thode             
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 4, 2005            
|                       
|/s/ FRANK CESARIO      
|Frank Cesario          
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 4, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000 AND DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          60,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  142,679
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,888
<PP&E>                                       1,461,560
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,022,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,664,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,617,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,664,446
<SALES>                                        355,199
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               357,875
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               177,631
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            180,244
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   180,244
<EPS-BASIC>                                      35.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    35.05


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 29, 2014

p0721

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2014

148262

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148262

COA: 316894

Wayne CC: 12-005595-FC

RICARDO SANDERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
-'; . ·.. . ~.,,. ... ~~~ .. ·:,... . ... . ·. . , .. 

____ ---y .... ,,_ ·-'PIN II, a. a. 

REF ID:All"4635 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

WASHINGTON 

Pleasejind below a eommunimtion/rom the EX.4.Jl.IINER 

In char1e oJ this application. /. ~ ff. . A' A._4•"'"'-•· .... ~ .,..~ ..... -..... :--~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ~~,,,..,. 

Barry u. saragov1tz 

U. S. PATENT OfFTCE 

JUN 10 1948 

'lAgal Div. · c/o u111er Signal Ot.ticer mn.iort: 16 MAJLr:n ~enta~on Dl0&• AppUcrmu William F. fi.Tedman ~aah1ngb:>n,. n.c. 

Sir.No. 47o.193 .... te-1"1111H F.W Jllar. b., 194, 

For SYSTE'M .FClt. EUCillIERIJ:G 

FAOSIMILK 

Ca:rtler 

Vem11m 

i:"fan;:.er 

Reaponai ve to amend.me nt tiled oo t. 20, 1947 • 

Additional re.terencea relied ans 

1,868,967 

1,310,719 

1,848,839 

Jul7 

July 

Mar. 

Claim 10 haa been canceled. 

l"om.orly allowed clu1m 1 is rejected sa being d1t•ectq 

readable on Cartier or Vernam.. The claim is readable on Cartier 

l'.1i:;uroa 2 and 3 aa tcllcws1 The f1 rat circuit 1s the one connected to cootucts K end th.e second c1rcu1t 1a connected to con.tacts 

K1 • D1Btr1butor Di 1a tbs transmitter while d1at~butor ~ 1a 

the rece 1 vor. l"i.'he interlock :is the rola7s J between K, Ki• 

'.i''he third circait is that controlled by contacts 52• 1he aecond 

recited interlocl~ is rela1'8 J2. The claims are applicable to 

Vernom in a. similar manner. 

Cla. ims 2 1 3, 81 91 11 nnd 12 u:re rej ectcd na being unpatentable over Csrt1el'" or Vernam on the anma grounds a.a stated 

above 1n :r·e ference to claim 1. 

Claim 4 1s rej octed on Curt1er or Vemam 1n view of 

Han~.:er. ·It is not cons1dered invention to substitute a photoeleetr1c tn:e or rom sce.nnin.:~~ device sucb as t'ha t or Ranger 

for the tai- scannlns dev1oea of Cartier or Vernam. 
' .. " 

""'Ii. ~· 

REF ID:All4635 

-2-

l' 1a noted that ol.thou~ theao clc.!:m• recite •raca!mllo 

•' wr1oue point• no pc.rt1oular tace!rd.le d1at1nGu1ab111.;.: atNct\re la aot torth 1n the clul?:Sa. 

c1a :Ima 5, 6 and. 7 e t1ll appoor allownble. 

It la ree.;rettec the t the above patt;,nta nro not pr'8V• 

lau.817 d1aecnrerea. 

'!b18 appl1cetion abt:·•l1d be "r·apared tor £'1nal L.ctlon. 

tzo tu.rthol' aomcl:Dmta tbDt do not plnce the oaee In cond~tion 

rcr allowance Cl' bett.- fb~ f'OI' appeal t4ll be enters~ a.rta 

t1na1 o.et1on. unlos ~ e.coO?DpQnied bJ a propor 8ho•1n .. _: ot i.J)O~ and 

mttia1ent reaaone whJ' t.bez were not e£.rl1or l.:reaonto(t• hule 

6U ana rom1sa1oncr•a ?:otke ot April 26, l~u, 610 o.~1. 2.:D. 

SWC/ipn 

. -::·: