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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-4417

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CYNTHIA CHAPMAN REAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-144)

Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 18, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.

Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian L. Whisler, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* While Appellant's history with alcohol is not as severe as

that of the appellant in Wesley, we are not prepared to say that

the district court's imposition of the condition was an abuse of

discretion.

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's revocation of her probation imposed for conspiracy to defraud through the use of forged

and counterfeit instruments. We affirm.

Appellant contends that the alleged violations: (1) are not

supported by sufficient evidence; (2) are insufficient to justify

a revocation of probation; or (3) are related to a condition of

probation which is itself an abuse of discretion. Addressing the

first two claims, our review reveals sufficient evidence to conclude that the alleged violations did in fact occur and that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's

probation for the stated reasons.

Addressing the final claim, Appellant argues that requiring a

total abstinence from alcohol as a condition of probation is an

abuse of discretion and her violation of this condition cannot be

used to justify the revocation. We find this argument to be unconvincing. See United States v. Wesley, 81 F.3d 482 (4th Cir. 1996)

(finding that requiring abstinence from alcohol as a condition of

supervised release does not constitute an abuse of discretion where

the appellant has a history of alcohol abuse).* Accordingly, we

affirm the district court's order revoking Appellant's probation.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
3

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT Pursuant
to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)  November 30, 2004

MAGNUM HUNTER
RESOURCES, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

|Nevada                                         | 1-12508                 | 87-0462881                       
|---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | ---------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (Commission File Number | (IRS Employer Identification No.)

600 East Las Colinas
Blvd., Suite 1100, Irving, Texas 75039(Address of principal
executive offices)        (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code   (972)
401-0752

Not applicable(Former
name or former address, if changed since last report)

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under
any of the following provisions:

[  ]    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

[  ]    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

[  ]    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

[  ]    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

---

ITEM 5.02   Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Principal Officers

On November 30, 2004, the Company announced the resignation of Mr. Chris Tong as Sr. Vice President and CFO effective January 1, 2005.  The Company
has appointed Brad Davis, age 45, to Sr. Vice President and CFO (Interim) to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Tong.Mr. Davis' employment agreement with the Company is attached as Exhibit
10.1 hereto and is incorporated herein by reference.  Mr. Tong's employment agreement will terminate effective January 1, 2005.

ITEM 9 - Financial Statements and Exhibits

Exhibit 10.1     Employment Agreement for Brad Davis, dated September 16, 2002 as amended.

Exhibit 99.1     Press Release dated November 30, 2004.

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

| | MAGNUM HUNTER RESOURCES, INC.BY:  /s/ Morgan F. JohnstonMorgan F. JohnstonSr. Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:       December 2, 2004
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

I, J. Scott Kamsler, 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 Centillium Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2006 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-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|Date: May 5, 2006 | /s/ J. Scott Kamsler
                     J. Scott Kamsler Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
              --------------------------------------------------

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 33-98232-LA) pertaining to the Photon Dynamics, Inc. 1987 Stock Option
Plan; the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-05283) pertaining to the
Photon Dynamics, Inc. 1987 Stock Option Plan and 1995 Stock Option Plan; the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51413) pertaining to the Photon
Dynamics, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan and 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of 
our report dated October 22, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Photon Dynamics, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-
KSB), for the year ended September 30, 1998.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Jose, California
December 16, 1998
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q of American Community Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 2, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Randy P. Helton                  
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Randy P. Helton                      
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; MSM Program Review.                    

*Date:*                         June 24, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         10 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Manana Sukhareva, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3397,                         *sukharem@mail.nih.gov*.                    

 Dated: April 14, 2015.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-08902 Filed 4-17-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Freddie J. Linen, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 330]

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered April 12, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in rejecting his *Batson*objection to the prosecutor’s exercise of a peremptory challenge *(see Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79 [1986]). The explanation of the prosecutor that the prospective juror would not make eye contact with him was race-neutral *(see People v Bodine,*283 AD2d 979 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 898 [2001]; *People v Diaz,*269 AD2d 766 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 852 [2000]), and the court’s determination *1023that the explanation was not pretextual is entitled to great deference *(see People v Carelock,*278 AD2d 851 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 757 [2001]). The court also properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the identification testimony of an eyewitness who identified defendant at a showup procedure conducted a few blocks away from the robbery and repeated that identification within minutes at the crime scene. “[T]he showup was reasonable under the circumstances—that is, . . . conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime—and the procedure used was not unduly suggestive” *(People v Brisco,*99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Pine, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
September 23, 2015

Dear Mr. Holzer: This letter is to inform y ou that the following informati on is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 2803). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

x Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s) , and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operati on. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including pa yload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).
Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 10/7/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. Sincerely, /s/ Brenda Robeson Program Analyst

## USDOT / FAA , October 1, 2015
Her e is exactly what you requested.

• Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed

- wing, rotorcraft, lighter

- than

- air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can b e located in the aircraft manual(s). 

### FORMAT	AS	INDICATED	AND	REQUESTED Make,	Model,	Type,	Max imum Weight	(including	payload)

1. DJI,	Pha ntom	3	Pro/Adv,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	130 0 grams 2. DJI,	Phan tom	3	Standard,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	130 0 grams 3. DJI,	Pha ntom 2	Vision+,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	130 0 grams 4. DJI,	Ph antom	2	Vision,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	130 0 grams 5. DJI,	Pha ntom	2,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	130 0grams 6. DJI,	Inspire	1, Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	360 0grams 7. DJI,	Spreading	Wings	S1000,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	2 4.2pounds 8. DJI,	Spreading	Wings	S1000+,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	24.2pounds 9. DJI,	Spreading	Wings	S900,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	18.1pounds 10. DJI,	Spreading	Wings	S800,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor, 15.5pounds 11. DJI,	Spreading	Wings	S800	EVO,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	1 7.7pounds 12. DJI,	Matrice,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	7.5pounds 13. 3DR,	X8

- M, Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor , 8.1pounds 14. 3DR,	X8+, Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor ,	7.3pounds 15. 3DR,	Solo, Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor ,	3.9pounds 16. Blade,	350 Q X 3,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	120 0 grams 17. Blade,	Chrom a, Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor ,	1300grams 18. Freefly,	Alta, Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor , 30pounds 19. Yuneec,	Typhoon	G, Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor ,	1700grams 20. Yuneec,	Typhoon	Q500	4K, Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor ,	1700grams 21. Yuneec,	Typhoon	Q500+ , Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor , 1700grams 22. Yuneec,	Typhoon	Q500 , Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor , 1700grams 23. Yuneec,	Tornado	H920 , Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor , 6000grams 24. Lily,	Lily	Drone, Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor ,	1300grams 25. xFold,	Cinema	x12,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Rotor,	45pounds 26. xFold,	Cinema	x8,	Rotorcraft/Multi

- Ro tor,	30pounds Thank	you , ALASKA	D IGITAL,	LLC
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Jon A. DeLuca, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 annual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual 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 annual report; 

 

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

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting that are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 30, 2005
Aug 02 11 03:23p DREDF (51°) 549-9339 p.1 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund DRFP F * 

• . . > • 

Comments on: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 382 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0098] RIN 2105-AD87 

en 

,' 

U J 

> 

-JO 

••ZD 

r\> 

;n:2:-,i^ 

—\o..-•', ' 

r^~^r:3 

-oO.T--^ 

rri-opi^ 

^—j~" ' 

ooo >"- ^ ' 

C O 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel; Accessibility of Aircraft 

and Stowage of Wheelchairs 

Submitted by: 

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) ~ ~ 

Marilyn Golden 

Policy Analyst 

(510] 644-2555 

mgolden@dredf.org 

Via FAX: (202)4-93-2251 

DREDF strongly opposes any change in the current prohibition of seat strapping. 

The purpose of the original rule was to guarantee the safe dignified passage of at least one 

manual folding wheelchair, and seat strapping has the opposite effect It's stigmatizing, 

regardless of whether any passengers are bumped to make room for the wheelchair. It's 

awkward and difficult, because two chairs will rarely be strapped the same way. If s timeconsuming, especially if the person or persons who strapped the chair are not the ones 

unstrapping it at the destination. 

For ease of safe stowage, nothing beats a dedicated closet space. The chair simply needs to 

be folded and stowed, and needn't be secured. Many people at our organization use air 

travel frequently, and it is our observation that air carriers have gotten used to this 

practice. As a manual wheelchair user, air carrier personnel have offered me this 

accommodation on many occasions, absent any request by me. 

Moreover, in most cases, air carriers will already have a space somewhere for this purpose. 

For example, if a closet is not available, there is often space behind the last row of seats. 

Moreover, a rule allov\nng seat strapping is a false promise. These days, on air travel in the 

US, no seating space will be available. That sets up a chain of very problematic 

consequences that should be the responsibility of air carriers, not people with disabilities. 

The stigma involved in bumping other passengers is significant, and completely 

inconsistent with the essence of the civil rights law such as the Air Carrier Access Act. 

m m i OFFICE: 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 • Berkeley, CA 94703 * 510.644.2555 • 510.841.8645 fax/tty • www.dredf.org 

GO'/EPcNMEMI mAlRS 0?F[CE: 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 700 • Washington, DC 20036 | Doing disabilityjustke
#### Barbro I. BENYA, Respondent, v. Gary E. GAMBLE, Petitioner.

(326 S. E. (2d) 654)

Supreme Court

Jan. 8, 1985.

ORDER

Petitioner seeks a *writ of certiorari*from this Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in *Benya v. Gamble,*321 S. E. (2d) 57 (S. C. App. 1984). The petition is granted.

The Appendix shall be docketed as the Transcript of Record as of the date of this order. Petitioner shall file eight additional copies of the Appendix by the deadline for filing *367the petitioner’s brief. The materials in the Appendix are not required to be certified copies. The parties are directed to file briefs in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 8, except only-one original brief and nine copies shall be required. This matter shall proceed in conformity with the Court’s rules.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Westergaard.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Anne H. Straton, President and
Treasurer 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates
and for the periods indicated.








Date:
June 10, 2008





/s/ Anne H.
Straton


Anne H. Straton,


President
and


Treasurer
#### The State, Respondent v. Calvin HAWKINS, Appellant.

(347 S. E. (2d) 98)

Supreme Court

*483June 6, 1986.

ORDER

Appellant moves to remand for evidentiary hearing pursuant *to Batson v. Kentucky,*_ U. S. _, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. (2d) 69 (1986). In *Batson,*the United States Supreme Court announced that upon a criminal defendant’s *prima facie*showing that the State exercised its peremptory juror strikes in a racially discriminatory manner, the burden shifts to the State to provide a neutral explanation.

We hold that *Batson*shall not apply retroactively to convictions obtained by juries empaneled prior to April 30, 1986, the date of the *Batson*decision. *See,*106 S. Ct. at 1725-26, 1731-32, 1740-41; *Daniel v. Louisiana,*420 U. S. 31, 95 S. Ct. 704, 42 L. Ed. (2d) 790 (1975). Because appellant was tried before the decision in *Batson,*the motion to remand is denied.

It is so ordered.