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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1142

SPENCER N. PENN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

METER SHOP,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-03468-JFM)

Submitted: August 20, 2014 Decided: August 27, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Spencer N. Penn, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Spencer N. Penn appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice for failure to 

comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Penn v. Meter Shop, No. 1:13-cv03468-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 30, 2014). 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
# U n i ted S t a te s C o u r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 13-5202 September Term, 2014 1: 10-c v -012 63-BA H Filed O n: Au gust 7, 201 5 Matt S issel, Ap pellan t
v
. United Sta tes De partm entof Health an d Hum an Services, et a l.,

Ap pellee s

BEFORE: Rogers, Pillard, a nd W ilkins, Circuit Jud ges O R D E R Upon con siderat ion o f

Ap pellan t’s pe tition for rehe aring en ban c, th e resp onse the reto, an d th e f ull cou rt’s delibe ration du ring the p oll on w het her t o ca ll for a v ote on the pe tition, the pa nel co nside red wheth er w e sh ould “ sua spon tevacate [ our] judgme nt and rehe ar[] t he case. ” Murphy v. I.R.S

. , 49 3 F.3 d 1 70, 17 3 (D.C. Cir. 20 07); cf . R U L E S O F TH E S U P R E M E C O U RT O F TH E U N I TE D S TA TE S , 13 .3 (n oting pra ctice within the Courts of App eals t o “ sua spon tecon sider[] rehe aring”) . Upo n su ch f urthe r caref ul con siderat ion, the pa nel re af

f irms its o pinion in Sissel v. U.S. Department o f Hea lth a nd Hum an Services , 76 0 F.3 d 1 (D.C. Cir. 201 4), a nd, it is ORDERED tha t th e reh earing be de nied

.

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Ken Mead ows Depu ty Cl erk
Order entered March 8, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01241 - CV JON EVANS, Appellant

V. LAURA MARTINEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law N o. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 15 - 04781 - D



### O RDER Befor e the Court is appellant’s March 6, 2019 unopposed second motion for extension of time to file brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than April 5, 2019. We caution appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 23

- 1408

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Altedias Maurice Campbell

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________

Submitted: September 18, 2023 Filed: November 2, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After finding that Altedias Campbell violated the conditions of supervised release by assaulting his girlfriend, the district court 1 sent him back to prison for 14

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.-2- months. Although h e argues there was no violation and that his sentence is too long

, we affirm.

First, sufficient evidence supported the finding that Campbell assault ed his girlfriend

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The victim herself testified

— credibly, in
the district court’s view

— about the who, when, where, why, and how of the attack. A credibility determination like this one “is quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on appeal.” United States v. Cates , 613 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). So relying on her account, along with photographs of her injuries, was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Sistrunk , 612 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (exp laining that we will reverse only if we are left with a
“definite and firm conviction” that the district court made a mistake (citation omitted) ).

Second, to the extent Campbell challenges the sentence itself, we conclude it is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Perkins , 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(c), (e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v.

Larison , 4 32 F.3d 921, 923

– 24 (8th Cir. 2006). We accordingly affirm the judgment
of the district court.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1(1)

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Joshua Pickus, the chief executive officer of
support.com, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



|(i) | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |  |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 10, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    JOSHUA PICKUS                 
|                      |  |  |  | Joshua Pickus                        
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to
support.com, Inc. and will be retained by support.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|(1) | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing, except to the extent that the registrant specifically
incorporates it by reference.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2016099EN.01000101.xml

| 15.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7948 — Hauptgenossenschaft Nord/Roth Agrarhandel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 99/01)

On 1 March 2016, 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 German 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7948. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7948. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3013 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3013

  To require the evaluation and standardization of suicide prevention 
     efforts by the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 20, 2021

  Ms. Ernst (for herself, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
    Crapo, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. 
   Gillibrand, Ms. Collins, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Scott of Florida, Ms. 
 Hirono, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Risch, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Blunt, 
   Mr. King, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. 
 Sullivan, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Rubio, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
 Wyden, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Warner, and Mrs. Hyde-Smith) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the evaluation and standardization of suicide prevention 
     efforts by the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Save Our Servicemembers Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. EVALUATION AND STANDARDIZATION OF SUICIDE PREVENTION EFFORTS BY 
              THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

    Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness shall--
            (1) direct the Defense Suicide Prevention Office to 
        collaborate with each Secretary of a military department--
                    (A) to develop and implement a process to ensure 
                that individual non-clinical suicide prevention efforts 
                are assessed for effectiveness among members of the 
                Armed Forces; and
                    (B) to develop consistent suicide-related 
                definitions to be used throughout the Department of 
                Defense;
            (2) require the use of suicide-related definitions 
        developed under paragraph (1)(B) to be used in any updated 
        policies of the Department of Defense or any military 
        department; and
            (3) enhance collaboration between the Defense Suicide 
        Prevention Office and the Psychological Health Center of 
        Excellence on the production of annual suicide reports to 
        minimize duplication of efforts by the Department of Defense.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from SEC Form 10-K/A and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         109,699
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  202,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (13,804)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                       6,867,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                 461,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,662,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      5,077,990
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    339,061
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,217,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,662,667<F2>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,054,167
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  571,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,992
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             287,823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                203,133
<INCOME-TAX>                                   203,133
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            203,133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     58
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   137,237
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant does not report using a classified balance sheet.
<F2>Includes limited parters' interest in the Operating Partnership.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07528]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--High Density Packaging User Group International 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 23, 2015, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), High Density Packaging User 
Group International, Inc. (``HDPUG'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Nokia Networks, Oulu, FINLAND; and Safran, 
Eragny-sur-Oise, FRANCE, have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and HDPUG intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 14, 1994, HDPUG filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15306).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 31, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on December 16, 2014 (79 FR 74766).


Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-07528 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE P
# C_2015380EN.01000101.xml

| 14.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7775 — BTPS/CPPIB/Haymarket House)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 380/01)

On 9 November 2015, 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 English 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7775. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7775. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Exhibit 32.1 – CEO 906 Certification




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 NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Laura A. Marriott, hereby 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) 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 operation of the Company.




Date:   March 25, 2011
/s/ Laura A. MarriottLaura A. MarriottActing Chief Executive Officerand Principal Executive Officer
National Agricultural Statistics Service Data 

and Freedom of Information Act Requests 

A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the case of 

 has raised questions about whether the producer-level information collected by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) on its surveys and censuses is subject to disclosure under the 

. The following points address those questions. 

Multi Ag Media LLC v. Department of 

Agriculture

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

3⁄4 The recent court ruling in the FOIA case involving the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has raised 

questions about the confidentiality of producer information reported to the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 

3⁄4 Unlike FSA, NASS is governed by specific statutes that explicitly prohibit the agency from releasing 

any information that is collected under our pledge of confidentiality and that could be traced back to 

an individual producer or farm operation. These statutes include and 

the . 

Title 7, U.S. Code, Section 2276

Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act

3⁄4 Because of these specific statutes, NASS is covered under FOIA Exemption 3, a straightforward 

statement that exempts disclosure of information that is protected from disclosure by other laws. In 

contrast, FSA argued Exemption 6, which exempts disclosure of personal information when there is 

an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court was then required to interpret how invasive 

the potential disclosure would be. 

3⁄4 Personal information collected by NASS under our , including data reported 

by producers, is protected not only from FOIA requests, but from being used for any non-statistical 

purpose in any judicial or administrative action. In fact, the only person who can request a copy of an 

individual producer’s data reported to NASS is the person who reported it. 

pledge of confidentiality

3⁄4 Names, addresses, phone numbers and other personal identifiers are fully protected by NASS with 

the force of law. After collecting data, NASS processes it independent of such identifiers. Original 

paper questionnaires are kept in a secure area, and then destroyed as prescribed by law. 

3⁄4 Only authorized persons working for NASS as employees or sworn agents can access individual data 

and only for approved official purposes. These individuals sign a legally binding confidentiality 

agreement and are subject to fines (up to $250,000) and imprisonment (up to 5 years) for 

unauthorized disclosure. 

3⁄4 The recent court ruling certainly make NASS’s job more difficult, since the success of the statistics 

program is dependent upon producers’ honest disclosure of sensitive information about their 

business operations. However, participants can be assured that none of the laws protecting NASS 

data have been compromised as a result of the recent FSA ruling.
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.

 December 26, 2013

t1223

Order 

Clerk

December 26, 2013

147000

GEORGE P. ASKER and CHARLOTTE ASKER,

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/

Appellees,

v SC: 147000

COA: 303529 

Wayne CC: 06-625093-CZ

WXZ RETAIL GROUP/GREENFIELD, L.L.C.,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/

Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. We 

REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for any further necessary proceedings.
VIRGINIA: 

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the 

City of Richmond on Thursday the 8th day of December, 2016. 

Michael Nelson Currier, Appellant, 

against Record No. 160102 

 Court of Appeals No. 1428-14-2 

Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.

 Upon an appeal from a judgment 

rendered by the Court of Appeals of 

Virginia.

In this case, we awarded appellant an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals 

holding that the trial court did not err in its denial of the appellant’s motion to set aside the jury 

verdict on the basis of collateral estoppel. Currier v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 605, 609-14, 

779 S.E.2d 834, 836-38 (2015). 

We have considered the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, and for the reasons 

stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the judgment. 

This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and to the Circuit Court 

of Albemarle County and shall be published in the Virginia Reports. 

Justice McCullough took no part in the consideration of this case. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste:

 

 Patricia L. Harrington, Clerk