alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                               POWER OF ATTORNEY



         KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Wade H. Nichols III, Robert K. Kretzman,
Lawrence E. Kreider and Joram C. Salig or any of them, each acting alone, his
true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution,
for him and his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection
with the REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the "Corporation") Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 (the "Form 10-K") under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of
the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the
Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract,
document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities
self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,
or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this
18th day of February, 1997.



                                                     /s/ Irwin Engelman
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     IRWIN ENGELMAN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         155,247
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         158,872
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                18,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,515,280
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,340,653
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,309,715
<LOANS>                                      6,079,550
<ALLOWANCE>                                     69,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,522,285
<DEPOSITS>                                   6,489,467
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,465,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            378,744
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,384,796
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       362,730
<OTHER-SE>                                     441,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              11,522,285
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                123,330
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               77,961
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,076
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               202,367
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              40,058
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,969
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          113,398
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,250
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               7,017
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 44,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 89,776
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      89,776
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    58,360
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.23
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,350
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,526
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                71,759
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,015
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,146
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               69,390
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            69,390
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1504

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, 

LLC; HOWARD N. BIERMAN; EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC; MARK R. 

GALBRAITH; WELLS FARGO; BANK OF AMERICA, f/k/a LaSalle Bank 

N.A., as successor-in-interest, Jointly and Severally, in 

their Official and Personal Capacities; OCWEN LOAN 

SERVICING, LLC, Jointly and Severally, in their Official 

and Personal Capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00827-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: November 14, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janice Wolk Grenadier, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Ryan Michael, 

BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, Richmond, Virginia; Syed Mohsin Reza, Mary 

Catherine Zinsner, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Tysons Corner,
2

Virginia; Nathaniel Patrick Lee, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Tysons 

Corner, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Janice Wolk Grenadier appeals the district court’s order 

declining to take action on her motion for reconsideration. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Grenadier v. BWW Law Group, No. 1:14-cv-00827-LMB-TCB 

(E.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2016). 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
CO Pt 

Sl'IIS.461 Codee 

(S-22-42) 

SPSIB-3 

•1 22, 1942 

llllmlUlUIDl '1'01 Officer In Charge, Aftf1 Co.munications Branch 

l.. A conference oa the subject or Joint u.s. and British 

Cl"JPtographic a7st'ems tor use ~Y land f orcaa ha.a be•n requested by 

P.,- Comandor 'f;ilaon t~ritiah) with a tantatiTe date 2100 Pll En.day, 

·~ 25th.. 

2. A.t the pr.;sent tiae the u.s. Na.Ty ia working on an 

attachment to '"1• 134--C which.will make poaaible the enciphering and 

claciphering Gt material handled by the Britiah type X JlllChi.ne. It 

ie not teaaible tor the Brit.iall to uaa ~he type X machine tor the 

deciphering ot material aeiit in ov 134-C. In view ot the tact tha°' 

the Na.T)" ie propte•uiDg with thia proJect and the distribution of 

the typ• X ie -1.ogoua to our cii11trihution or the 134-C, dOllB to and 

including diritllona 9 thia attachment appears to be a ready solution to · high oomatmd 1.ntenommaicationa ena1tlb1g lila to maintain our owa 

cr,;ptogiapblo ...-.dtr by u•ing "ti.he 1J4-C rit.hout this attac.bant. 

l• M.• d1ri.•1o•, tbs Britillh have Tery little to ofrer 

cGDparabl.e 1a arJ}\tographic security, ease ct operation or speed with 

the x-209. Tit• 11-209 has been d.iscwrsed previously tor joint air 

operationa. Its inclusion in any discussion for land operation will 

not be pre•cnting any inf'orma.ticn tc th& British ot ~hich they are 

not at th• p~11ent time aware. 

4. It. i• t\trther daaired to discuss ow- tentative Combat 

Code aa a medium tor the ex.change or informaticn between the two 

torcea. 

5. Anthori.tr to discuss our Cl'Jptographic syate11B·tor Join~ epera.~ion is belieTed highly deairable and such action ia 

recoaaended by tt,.e Signal Intelligence ~ervice. 

,.. . \ f...1.}<" 

.. (y l .... Frank w. Bal.lock, 

Col., 5i6D&i Corp• 

CONFI~ENTL\L COPY 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 09-20-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6705

ANGELO MARCELLUS IRVING,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00571-JAG)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Marcellus Irving, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine 

Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Angelo Marcellus Irving appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to reopen the time to appeal. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Irving v. Clarke, No. 3:14-cv-00571-JAG (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 

2016). 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
# C_2014121EN.01000101.xml

| 24.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6910 — Gazprom/Wintershall/Target Companies)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 121/01)

On 3 December 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6910. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6910. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2


                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                              AS ENACTED UNDER
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                ---------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IGI, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carlene Lloyd, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, state and
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION] 1350, as enacted under
[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 result of operations of the
Company as of September 30, 2004 (the end of the period covered by the
Report).

Date: November 11, 2004

                                       /s/ Carlene Lloyd
                                       -----------------
                                       Carlene Lloyd
                                       Vice President, Finance


<PAGE>
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Amarfio Dejalo Washington , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00025

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 188th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 50106

- A ). Memora ndum Opinion delivered by Justice Stevens

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note t hat the appellant, Amarfio Dejalo Washington , has adequately indicated his
inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 27, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6839

ROBERT DALE SMART, a/k/a Robert Smart, a/k/a Robert D. Smart, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-03918-GRA-BHH)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 7, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Dale Smart, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, A lphonso Simon, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Dale Smart seeks to appeal the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s order denying Smart’s motion to compel discovery. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Smart seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Smart’s motions for default judgment and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 27, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00347

- CV

ALLSTATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

, Appellant

v.

Gregorio G. PAREDES Jr., Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 9,016

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due July 5, 2016, but was not filed. On July 6, 2016, the court reporter filed a notification of late record stating the record was not filed because has neither requested the record nor paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter ’ s fee to prepare the

record , implying that appellant is not entitled to the record without paying the fee. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 34.6(b), 35.3(b). In response, we ordered ap pellant to provide written proof to this court

that : (1) appellant ha d requested preparation of the record; (2) the reporter ’ s fee ha d been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the reporter ha d been made to pay the reporter ’ s fee ; or ( 3 ) appellant

wa s enti tled to the record without prepayment of the reporter ’ s fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(b).

As ordered , appellant provided proof that it had requested the record and an invoice from the reporter, but that the reporter h a d apparently not received the req uest. Appellant thereafter provided the reporter with an amended request and acknowledged its willingness to provide payment upon receipt of an invoice from the reporter. Thereafter, the reporter provided appellant with an invoice and appellant made the required payment. The reporter completed the record

and filed it in this court on July 27, 2016.

Accordingly, because it now appears the appellate record is complete, we ORDER appellant to file its appellant’s brief in this court on or before August 2 6, 2016.

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of July, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Walker and others, Respondents, vs. Daly, imp., Appellant.

*February 1*

February *21, 1893.*

*Publie lands: Patents to persons not entitled thereto: Fraud.*

*Walker v. Daly,*80 Wis. 222, followed.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Wood*County.

The cause was submitted upon the briefs submitted upon the former appeal.

"Winslow, J.

This case has been once before this court, upon demurrer to the complaint, and will be found reported in 80 Wis. 222. It was there held that the complaint stated a good cause of action. As the allegations of the complaint are ther^ fully set forth, no further statement of them is now necessary. Upon return to the circuit court the appellant declined to plead and stood upon his demurrer, whereupon judgment was entered decreeing that the appellant, *Daly,*holds the premises described in the complaint as trustee of the plaintiffs, and that he convey the same to the plaintiffs. From this judgment, *Daly*again appeals. Our views are fully set forth in the previous opinion, above referred to, upon the demurrer, and no further discussion is necessary.

*By the*Gov/rt.— Judgment affirmed.
# C_2014244EN.01002301.xml

| 26.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/23

---

Call for expressions of interest to become a candidate member of the SESAR Joint Undertaking

SESAR Research and Innovation Programme 2020

Ref. SJU/LC/0110-CEI

2014/C 244/11

The SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) has launched a call for expression of interests to become a candidate member of the SJU. This call is addressed to the current members, who wish to confirm their interest in SESAR 2020, and to any new entity who intends to become a member of the SJU, and who fulfil the criteria established in the SJU Regulation and Horizon 2020 for the activities to be carried out under the European Union’s 2014-2020 financial framework.

The deadline for submission of applications is set on 30 September 2014.

30 September 2014

Further details and the call documentation are available on the SJU website:

http://www.sesarju.eu/procurement

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>

                     ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
                            FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                         IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITEM 601(C)
                          OR REGULATIONS S-K AND S-B

                               (In thousands)

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Consolidated Statement of Operations and Retained Earnings for the year ended 
September 30, 1997 and the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1997 
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial 
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>               1,000
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                           7,421
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                   36,187
<ALLOWANCES>                     1,618
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                62,748
<PP&E>                         130,274
<DEPRECIATION>                  78,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 280,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           44,230
<BONDS>                        396,578
<COMMON>                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<OTHER-SE>                    (185,564)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   280,977
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               172,828
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  129,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 1,193
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   576
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              42,870
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  1,534
<INCOME-TAX>                     1,110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                424
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                       424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6529

WAYNE D. COOPER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN STEVENSON, Broad River Corr. Inst.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bruce H. Hendricks, District 

Judge. (9:14-cv-04500-BHH)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne D. Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne D. Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Cooper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED