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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6261

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT POPE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:10-cr-00183-JFA-1; 3:13-cv-01370-JFA)

Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Pope, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness Richardson, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Pope seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that 

judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Pope has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF POLICY

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Transmittal to Docket: Summary of the March 16, 2011, Public Meeting in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, regarding the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Implementation of Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review

FROM: Stuart C. Miles-McLean

Office of Regulatory Policy and Management

TO: Public Docket #EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156: Improving Regulations: General

As called for by President Obama in Executive Order 13563, "to facilitate the periodic 

review of existing significant regulations," the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

considering "how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal 

them in accordance with what has been learned." 

As part of its retrospective review of regulations, EPA convened public meetings around 

the country to gather input on how we might design the plan we will use to periodically review 

our regulations. This Memo transmits to the docket a summary of the public meeting held on

March 16, 2011, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
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.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

###### Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities

# AGENCY:

Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Domestic Indemnity Panel.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 17, 2022, from 12:00 p.m. until adjourned.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held by videoconference originating at the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506, (202) 606-8322;                         *evoyatzis@neh.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, for exhibitions beginning on or after March 21, 2022. Because the meeting will consider proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, and material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and because it is important to keep the values of objects to be indemnified and the methods of transportation and security measures confidential, I have determined that that the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated April 15, 2016.

Dated: January 11, 2022.

Samuel Roth,

Attorney-Advisor, National Endowment for the Humanities.

[FR Doc. 2022-00667 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RICK E. NEWMAN, : Case No. C-1-01 0067

:

Plaintiff, : Judge Herman J. Weber

:

v. : NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION

: OF ROGER L. WABEKE

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE :

COMPANY, ET AL., :

:

Defendants. :

___________________________________________________

Plaintiff Rick E. Newman hereby gives notice that he has filed the deposition of

Roger L. Wabeke in the above-captioned matter.

Respectfully submitted,

ARNZEN & WENTZ, P.S.C.

BY:s/ Mary K. Molloy 

MARY K. MOLLOY (0003067)

MARK G. ARNZEN

BEVERLY R. STORM

600 Greenup Street

P.O. Box 472

Covington, Kentucky 41012-0472

Telephone: (859) 431-6100

E-mail: mmolloy@arnzenlaw.com

Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 93 Filed 09/09/2003 Page 1 of 2
AV0013.WPD/1 2

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed via U.S. mail, postage

prepaid, this 9th day of September 2003 to the following:

John C. Scott, Esq.

Joe Mordino, Esq.

Faulkner & Tepe, LLP

2200 Fourth & Vine Street

5 West Fourth Street

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Scott R. Thomas, Esq.

Jeanette N. Dannenfelser, Esq.

Furnier & Thomas, LLP

One Financial Way

Suite 312

Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

s/ Mary K. Molloy 

 

Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 93 Filed 09/09/2003 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 6351** 

CHARLES A. WILLIAMS ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

JEFFREY CANADY; MR . DUNN; JOHNSTON COUNTY SHERIFF’ S DEPARTMENT NARCOTICS DIVISION ,
Defendants

– Appellees ,
and

ADREN L. HARRIS ,
Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:10

- cv
- 00558

- FL )

Submitted : Ju ne 26 , 2014 Decided: Ju ne 30 , 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING , and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Charles A. Williams , Appellant Pro Se. Ronnie Monroe Mitchell , MITCHELL LAW GROUP , Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions a re not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Williams appeals the district court ’ s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for t he reasons stated by the district

court. Williams v. Canady , No. 5:10

- cv
- 00558

- FL (E.D.N.C. Jan.

7, 2014) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument wou ld not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
EX-32
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF ROBERT A. HOVEE AND DAVID J. BARNES

                     SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of World Am, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to his
knowledge:

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.


Dated: April 28, 2006                  /s/ Robert A. Hovee
                                       Robert A. Hovee,
                                       Chief Executive Officer


Dated: April 28, 2006                  /s/ David J. Barnes
                                       David J. Barnes,
                                       Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Genta Incorporated (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), I,
Raymond P. Warrell Jr. M.D., Chief Executive 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 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 operations of the Company.

|Date: August
  6, 2004              
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|                                    
|/s/ RAYMOND
  P. WARRELL, JR., M.D. 
|                                    
|Name:  Raymond P. Warrell, Jr., M.D.
|Title: Chief
  Executive Officer    



---

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

 Plaintiff, : Case Number 3:17-MJ-506 

 

 -vs- : Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 

WILLIAM PRIGMORE : 

 

 Defendant. : 

 ORDER FOR LIMITED UNSEALING 

 Upon motion of the United States, and for good cause shown, the United States is hereby 

authorized to provide Nicholas Gounaris , Counsel for Defendant, a copy of the sealed Criminal 

Complaint, Affidavit and Arrest Warrant for review with his client, William Prigmore, without 

further dissemination or copying of these items. Further, these items shall remain under seal 

until such time as ordered by the Court. 

October 24, 2017 s/Michael J. Newman 

 

 Michael J. Newman 

 United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:17-cv-00160-SJD-KLL Doc #: 24 Filed: 01/16/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 73
Case: 1:17-cv-00160-SJD-KLL Doc #: 24 Filed: 01/16/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 74
Exhibit 4.2


 


AMENDMENT TO THE


 


RF INDUSTRIES, LTD. 2010 STOCK INCENTIVE
PLAN


 


This Amendment (this "Amendment")
to the RF Industries, Ltd. 2010 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), is made and shall be effective as of this 4th day
of September, 2015.


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of RF Industries,
Ltd. (the "Company") has previously approved an amendment to the Plan to increase the number of shares reserved under
the Plan by 500,000 shares; and


 


WHEREAS, effective as of this date, the
stockholders of the Company have approved a 500,000 increase in the number of shares reserved under the Plan;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section
12(b) of the Plan, Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:


 


		1.	Share Reserve. Subject to the provisions of subsection 11(a) relating to adjustments upon changes in Common Stock, the
shares of Common Stock that may be issued pursuant to Stock Awards shall not exceed in the aggregate 2,000,000 shares of Common
Stock. Subject to subsection 4(b), the number of shares available for issuance under the Plan shall be reduced by (i) one
share for each share of Common Stock issued pursuant to a Stock Award granted under Section 6 or Section 7 and (ii) one
share for each Common Stock equivalent subject to a stock appreciation right granted under subsection 7(c)..



 


		2.	As modified hereby, the provisions of the Plan shall
remain in full force and effect, and the Plan may be restated, as amended hereby, in its entirety.
Exhibit 10.3


 


SEcond
Amendment to CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE 


 


This
Second Amendment to Convertible Promissory Note (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of
October 23, 2015 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) by and between Global Defense & National Security Systems,
Inc. (the “Company”), and Global Defense & National Security Holdings LLC (the “Lender”).
Capitalized terms used in this Amendment but not defined herein shall have the meanings given in the Note (as defined below).


 


Whereas:
the Company previously issued a Convertible Promissory Note having an initial principal amount of US$1,343,790 with an issuance
date as of May 12, 2015, which was amended on July 21, 2015, (the “Note”); and


 


Whereas:
each of the Company and the Lender desires to amend certain terms of the Note in accordance with the terms and provisions in this
Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the premises and the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.          Section
2 is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:


 


“2.          This
convertible promissory note (the “Note”) will be repaid in full on the earlier of (1) November 24, 2015 or (2)
immediately following the consummation of the Company’s initial Business Combination (as defined in the Company’s Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation) (the “Business Combination Trigger”).”


 


2.          Except
as modified by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment and the
Note (including the documents referred to herein and therein) represent the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect
to the subject matter hereof and thereof and supersede all prior agreements or understandings, oral or written, with respect to
the subject matter hereof and thereof. In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this Amendment and/or the
Note (including the documents referred to herein and therein), (a) to the extent the conflicting provisions can reasonably
be interpreted so that such provisions are consistent with each other, such consistent interpretation shall prevail; and (b) to
the extent the preceding subsection (a) does not apply, the terms of this Amendment shall control.


 


3.          This
Amendment will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the state of Delaware.


 


[Signatures on the following page]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Amendment Effective Date.


  


	
        GLOBAL DEFENSE & NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS,
INC: 
	GLOBAL DEFENSE & NATIONAL SECURITY HOLDINGS LLC:
	 	 
	 	By: Black Marlin Ltd, its Manager


 


	By:	/s/ Frederic Cassis	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	/s/ Damian Perl
	Name:	Frederic Cassis	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Name:	Damian Perl
	Title:	
        Secretary 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Title:	Manager





	Execution Date:	October 23, 2015	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Execution Date:	October 23, 2015


 




    2
P.1 

OAR Box 1837 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

165) IV-C-5 

Docket Number: 

A-84-33 

Printed 11/14/2008 3:48:11 PM Sheet 165 of 238 
^^HT.».***.~ ^^^.^^^^^^.. ^ ^ i^yj-j\;>^ - j f 

UNITED STATKS KNVIRONMKNTAL I'KOTKCTIUiN AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20-160 

P.2 

PRO^° 

NW 7 

OIT1CI- OlAIR ANU RADIATION 

Honorable J. Stephen Griles 

Assistant Secret .-try for Land 

and Minerals Management 

Department of the Interior 

Washington, D. C. 20240 

'• • I Dear. Mr. Gri les : '" -. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been 

involved in rulemaking to ilel.i'ririi ne whether surface coal 

mines (SCM's) should be subject to air quality new source 

review permitting under the Clean Air Act (49 FR 43211, 

October 26, 1984; and 51 FR 7090, February 23, 1936). 

On May 29, 1986, you and Assistant Secretary Horn submittecJ 

extensive comment on this proposal. Part of your comment, 

Attachment C, addressed the amount of western coal reserves 

potentially affected by Alternative IV (involving prevention 

of significant deterioration of air quality Class I and 

mandatory Class II areas). 

Wo are now evaluating the total rulemaking record in 

order to make our final decision on this proposal. Part of 

that effort involves a more precise analysis of the areas 

that would be affected by Alternative IV. The data which 

you provided in Attachment C are useful to us, but the 

maps on which they are based would be especially helpful 

in revealing the exact areas in question and the key 

assumptions of your analysis. 

A member of my staff has requested copies of these maps 

and was told by OSM staff that an official request was 

required. Therefore, I am officially requesting that you 

provide me with copies of the maps, along with appropriate 

caveats on their use and distribution. Thank you for your 

assistance. 

Sincerely, 

.(Sgdl Craig 

J. Craig Potter 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation
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 on Form 10-Q of Acorn Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John A.
Moore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.




/s/John A.
      MooreJohn
      A. MooreChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      13, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

WILHELMENIA LEE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1254-96-1 PER CURIAM 

 DECEMBER 17, 1996 

CITY OF PORTSMOUTH SCHOOL BOARD 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William E. Baggs, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Andrew R. Blair, on brief), for appellee. 

 The sole issue on this appeal is whether the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that 

Wilhelmenia Lee (claimant) failed to prove that she sustained an 

injury by accident arising out of her employment on May 16, 1995. 

 Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we 

conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). To 

recover benefits, claimant must establish that she suffered an 

"injury by accident arising out of and in the course of [her] 

employment," Code § 65.2-101, and "that the conditions of the 

workplace or some significant work related exertion caused the 

injury." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (1989). "The phrase arising 'out of' 

refers to the origin or cause of the injury." County of 

Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183, 376 S.E.2d 73, 74 

(1989). "Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a 

mixed question of law and fact and is reviewable by the appellate 

court." Plumb Rite, 8 Va. App. at 483, 382 S.E.2d at 305. 

However, unless we conclude that claimant proved, as a matter of 

law, that her employment caused her injury, the commission's 

finding is binding and conclusive on appeal. Tomko v. Michael's 

Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

 In denying claimant's application, the commission found as 

follows: 

 [C]laimant has offered no testimony that she 

was in an awkward position or cramped 

quarters when she bent over to pick up a 

piece of paper. The claimant argues that 

because she is overweight we must presume she 

was in an awkward position when she bent over 

on a school bus. However, absent some 

specific evidence that her movement was 

obstructed, confined, cramped, restricted, or 

made difficult or awkward in any way by her 

work environment, we cannot presume that a 

back injury from bending to pick up a piece 

of paper "arises out of" the employment. 

 The evidence established that claimant did not engage in any 

significant exertion, that her action of bending did not involve 

any awkward position, and that no condition or hazard peculiar to 

her workplace caused her injury, aside from the usual act of 

bending and picking up a piece of paper. Therefore, we hold that 

claimant failed to prove as a matter of law that her injury arose 
 3 

out of her employment. 

 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.