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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DANA LEE HUNTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00105-JAB)

Submitted: May 23, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C.

Ingram, Jr., First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

Attorney, Kearns Davis, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dana Lee Hunter entered a conditional plea of guilty to

one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000), reserving the right to

challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the

indictment. Hunter appeals, contending that his predicate state

conviction, cruelty to animals, did not satisfy § 922(g)(1) as a

matter of law. Finding no error, we affirm.

Section 922(g)(1) prohibits anyone who has been convicted

of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison to possess a

firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hunter asserts that, under North

Carolina’s structured sentencing scheme law, his maximum sentence

was less than twelve months because no aggravating factors were

either admitted or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, as Hunter concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United

States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126

S. Ct. 297 (2005). Thus, because it is undisputed that a sentence

of over twelve months could be imposed on a defendant convicted of

cruelty to animals in North Carolina, Hunter’s prior conviction was

properly considered a predicate felony under § 922(g)(1).

Accordingly, we affirm Hunter’s conviction. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
MEMORANDUM

TO: Portland Cement NESHAP Docket

FROM: Keith Barnett, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

DATE: June 2, 2008

SUBJECT: Meeting on Portland Cement NESHAP

On August 28 and September 4, 2009 teleconferences were held between representatives of the USEP A and several cement companies. The purpose of the call was to discuss the THC testing program. Underlined attendees attended both meetings.

Attendees for September 4, 2009 Conference on THC Test Plan

John Holmes AEMS Curt is L esslie Ash Grove Cement Co. Dan Nugent Buzzi Unicem USA Inc. Rich Alonso Bracewell & Giulliani Desirea Haggard CalPortland Satish Sheth CEMEX Lillian DePrimo CEMEX Peter Tsirigotis EPA Steve Fruh EPA Keith Barnett EPA Doug Roark GCC of America, In c. Hector Ybanez Holcim (US) Inc. Jason Morin Holcim (US) Inc. Michael Pelan La farge North America Inc. Tim Matz Lehi gh Cement Co. Dav id Novello L aw Offices of David Novello LLC Andy O’Hare Portland Cement Association Jay Willis Titan AmericaLLC Nancy Garnett TXI
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

[Date]

[Recipient Name]

[Recipient Company]

[Recipient Address]

[Recipient City, State, and Zip Code]

Dear [Mr. or Ms.] [Recipient Name]:

As part of an ongoing project investigating formaldehyde emissions from composite or pressed 

wood products, EPA is surveying all U.S. pressed wood manufacturers to learn more about formaldehyde 

emissions, how those emissions might be reduced, and at what cost. For the purpose of this survey, EPA 

is defining pressed wood as: engineered wood flooring, glulam, hardboard, I-joists, medium density 

fiberboard, oriented strandboard, particleboard, plywood (both hardwood and softwood), and structural 

composite lumber (including laminated veneer lumber, laminated strand lumber, parallel strand lumber, 

and oriented strand lumber). 

A staff member from Abt Associates Inc. (a research and consulting firm working under contract 

to assist EPA with this survey) will call your plant to determine whether you manufacture one of the 

pressed wood products included in the survey. If you do manufacture pressed wood, they will ask for the 

name of a contact person at your company to receive the survey questionnaire, and verify your address 

and other facility information. EPA will then send the questionnaire to the contact person. 

It is important that you respond to the phone call and take part in the survey. EPA needs 

information from all companies (including those making products with low formaldehyde emissions and 

those with no added formaldehyde) to determine whether further action is needed, and to understand the 

impact of potential actions on manufacturers. Your participation will help EPA understand your company 

and the industry as a whole. 

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact me at silagi.william@epa.gov or at 

(202) 564-8788. 

Sincerely,

William Silagi
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Superclick, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ending July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Jean
      Perrotti, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





1.
      the
      Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Dated:
                Date: August ____, 2008
            /s/
                Jean PerrottiName:
                Jean PerrottiTitle: Chief Financial OfficerAnd Principle Accounting Officer
Opinion issued July 25 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 18
- 00771
- CV

——————————— HEATHER HUGHES , Appellant

V. PETER GIAMMANCO , Appellee

O n Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. 2018
- 26459

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 10.3(a)(2), 42.1(a)(1). The parties have agreed that each will bear his or her own appellate costs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 2.1(d).2

Accordingly, we grant the unopposed motion and dismiss the appeal

. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1) , (d), 43.2(f)

. We further vacate our May 30, 2019 judgment. We do not withdraw our opinion issued on May 30, 2019

. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 42.1(c) (“In d ismissing a proceeding, the appellate court will determine whether to withdraw any opinion it has already issued.”) . We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Landau

.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2999 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2999

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services, any officer or 
  employee of the Department of Health and Human Services, and States 
 from requiring COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of eligibility for 
 benefits or assistance under the Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2021

  Mr. Scott of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services, any officer or 
  employee of the Department of Health and Human Services, and States 
 from requiring COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of eligibility for 
 benefits or assistance under the Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP programs.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING COVID-19 VACCINATION AS A CONDITION 
              OF ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS OR ASSISTANCE UNDER THE 
              MEDICARE, MEDICAID, OR CHIP PROGRAMS.

    Neither the Secretary of Health and Human Services nor any officer 
or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services (or, if 
applicable, the chief executive officer of a State or any officer or 
employee of a State or a State Medicaid or CHIP agency) shall establish 
or enforce any requirement that an individual receive a COVID-19 
vaccine as a condition of the individual receiving benefits or 
assistance under any of the following programs:
            (1) The Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social 
        Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
            (2) The Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social 
        Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
            (3) The Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI 
        of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
#### Ford et al. v. Baird, Assignee of D. Jones & Co.

1. Ekkok. — where judgment has been entered on default, though the special count in the plaintiff’s declaration may be objectionable, yet the common counts being good, the judgment will be sustained.

(1 *Chand.*212.)

ERROR to the late District Court for *Brown*County.

An action of assumpsit was brought against the defendant *Ford,*as the receiver of the Green Bay lumbering company, and against the other defendants, as members of said lumbering company. The declaration counted upon a note given by *Ford,*as *receiver,*to D. Jones & Co., and there were also the common money counts.

A part of the defendants suffered a default for want of a plea, and others of them pleaded the general issue, and one, a special plea. None of the defendants appeared to defend when the suit was called on for trial, and the default of all was taken, and the damages were assessed as against all, for the amount of principal and interest. A motion was made in behalf of the defendants below for a new trial, but which was refused by the district judge, and the cause was brought to this court upon the errors alleged.

*D. II. Chandler,*for the plaintiffs in error,

insisted that the count upon the note given by the receiver of the lumber company, could not be enforced as against the members of the company, because they were not parties to it, nor as against the receiver, because it was executed by him in his official name; and that there was no allegation in the count that he had funds in his hands as such receiver, or that he promised other than as receiver.

That no recovery on the common money counts could be had, because there was no privity of contract between *all*the defendants and Jones & Co.; that there had been no amendment of the declaration as to parties or matter, and that the *243statute did not presume an amendment to have been made unless it had been done in fact: and there being no amendment in fact, the judgment could not be sustained.

*A. L. Oollins,*for the defendant in error,

claimed that the declaration was sufficient to sustain the judgment, and that, after default and judgment, the court would not disturb it on writ of error.

Stow, C. J.

This was a judgment by default in the court below, and we do not discover any such error in the record as will warrant its reversal, Though the special count may perhaps be bad, the common counts are unobjectionable, and are sufficient to support the judgment; and, after verdict or default, this is enough.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                        5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   515,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (515,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.02


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.75

	 
	 
	 


 


This is an English
Translation


 


Spousal Consent
Letter


 


I, Jianxin Gao He (ID No:    ), as the
legal spouse of Xiangdong Qi (ID No: ), hereby unconditionally agree that the equity interests of Beijing Qihu Technology Company
Limited, owned by and registered under name of my spouse, is disposed in accordance with the arrangements under Loan Agreement,
Equity, Equity Disposition Agreement and Equity Pledge Agreement dated as of October 18, 2010 and other supplementary agreements
to be signed from time to time.


 


I further guarantee not to take any
action at any time with an intention conflicting against the above-identified arrangements, including making a claim to court or
other competent authorities that such equity interests constitute the property or community property between my spouse and me.
I, unconditionally and irrevocably, hereby waive any and all rights or benefits granted to me with relation to such equity interests
under applicable laws and confirm that in no event such equity interests constitute any community property between my spouse and
me.


 


	 	 	 
	 	Name of the Spouse:	 /s/ Jianxin Gao
	 	 	Jianxin Gao
	 	ID No:	 
	 	Date	October 18, 2010


 


Witness:


 


 


/s/ Mingzhe Zhou


_______________________


Mingzhe Zhou


 


 


 


 


/s/ Qiuhua Xu


_______________________


Qiuhua Xu
March Crop Production

Executive Summary

Fleming Gibson, Head

Fruits, Vegetables, & Special Crops Section

March 9, 2021
Data Sources

March 9, 2021

Objective Measurement

Florida Citrus

Row Count

Florida Citrus

Utilization Florida Citrus Administrative Committee

Data Quantity of Fruit Packed or Processed

Field Surveys

963 Groves February 15-23

88,299 Rows February 24-25
March 9, 2021

March 2021 Citrus

Utilized Production

All Oranges

% Change from Previous Estimate ↑ 0.4

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 11.0

Non-Valencia Oranges

% Change from Previous Estimate ↑ 0.8

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 12.9

Valencia Oranges

% Change from Previous Estimate ↓ 0.3

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 8.1

Grapefruit

% Change from Previous Estimate NC

% Change from Previous Season ↑ 5.4

Lemons

% Change from Previous Estimate NC

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 5.8

Tangerines

% Change from Previous Estimate NC

% Change from Previous Season ↑ 4.5

Production

(1,000 Tons)

970

4,642

2,748

1,894

564

1,036

11.63

11.07

9.37 9.03 8.73

7.70

6.08

8.14 7.78

7.21

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Million Tons

All Citrus Production

United States

8.98

8.27

6.77

6.35 6.09

5.09

3.88

5.43 5.22

4.64

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Million Tons

All Orange Production

United States
March 9, 2021

2020 Field Crops

Acreage, Yield, and Production

Unit Unit

Sugarcane Ton Ton

% Change from Previous Estimate N/A ↓ 0.1 ↑ 0.5 ↑ 0.3

% Change from Previous Season N/A ↑ 3.8 ↑ 8.9 ↑ 13.0

N/A

Yield

(Units per Acre)

Harvested

(1,000 Acres)

Planted

(1,000 Acres)

Production

(1,000 Units)

948 38.1 36,100
Selected Upcoming Reports

March 9, 2021

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/index.php

March 19 Cattle on Feed

March 25 Hogs and Pigs

Agricultural Prices

Grain Stocks

Prospective Plantings

Rice Stocks

Cotton System

Fats & Oils

Grain Crushings

April 5 Crop Progress

April 9 Crop Production

March 31

April 1
USDA NASS DATA USERS’ MEETING

March 9, 2021

April 14 and 15, 2021

12:00 – 3:00 p.m. ET

For more information and to register please go to

www.nass.usda.gov/Education_and_Outreach/Meeting/index.php
All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

(202) 720-2127

(800) 727-9540

nass@usda.gov
II • REF ID:A71860 

I?IDEX SHEET 

F!le under I 

To.: 

I 

Class.ti'fcatlor.!: T°(f ~ Duz #44& 

I 

Syr=.opsis: 

Cc 

Documen~ filed under.Uo.B//,.S_ 8,.h W~', tJ.JU. g_. 

I' 

i SIS-SC Form No. 67 I 27 Dcce~:icr 1944 

eclassifi ed and a roved for release b NSA on 09-18-2013 ursuantto E .0. 1352 - , 

y 

- ...
J-S71023-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROBERT STEVEN THOMPSON, JR.

Appellant No. 3604 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 29, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003334-2014

BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED NOVEMBER 29, 2016

Appellant, Robert Steven Thompson, Jr., appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered after he was convicted of disorderly conduct, possession of 

marijuana, and harassment. However, Thompson’s counsel concedes that 

the post-sentence motion and notice of appeal were untimely filed. Counsel 

requests, in the interests of justice, that we nevertheless treat this appeal as 

timely. This we cannot do. See Commonwealth v. Burks, 102 A.3d 497, 

500 (Pa. Super. 2014).

Here, as in Burks, there was no fraud or breakdown in the court’s 

operation, merely a mistake by counsel. We have no authority to excuse

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S71023-16

- 2 -

Thompson’s untimely notice of appeal, and therefore quash. Thus, 

Thompson’s motion to proceed pro se is moot.

Appeal quashed. Motion to proceed pro se denied as moot.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/29/2016
NO. 12-16-00242-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

DONALD RAY BISCAMP

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 3RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Donald Ray Biscamp filed a motion for rehearing, which is overruled. However, we 

withdraw our September 21, 2016 opinion and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Donald Ray Biscamp attempts to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for 

expunction. However, the clerk’s record in this case does not include a final judgment or other 

appealable order. Therefore, the record does not show that this Court has jurisdiction of the 

appeal. On September 2, 2016, this Court notified Biscamp of the defect. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.2. Biscamp was further notified that his appeal would be dismissed if the information 

received in the appeal was not amended, on or before October 3, 2016, to show the jurisdiction 

of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). The October 3 deadline has now passed, and we have 

not received a final judgment or other appealable order in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2, 42.3.

Opinion delivered December 9, 2016.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 9, 2016

NO. 12-16-00242-CV

EX PARTE: DONALD RAY BISCAMP

Appeal from the 3rd District Court 

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DCCV16-171-3)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the 

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.