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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1106

SYLVIA CARAVETTA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:11-cv-00540-JCC-JFA)

Submitted: June 12, 2012 Decided: June 15, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sylvia Caravetta, Appellant Pro Se. Cynthia Lee Santoni, 

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP, McLean, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Sylvia Caravetta seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing her civil complaint with prejudice. In civil 

actions in which the United States or its officer or agency is 

not a party, a notice of appeal must be filed with the district 

court within thirty days after entry of the district court’s 

final judgment or order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007). The district court may extend the filing time if “a 

party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed 

by . . . Rule 4(a) expires” and the party shows excusable 

neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). 

The district court’s order dismissing Caravetta’s 

complaint was entered on December 21, 2011. Caravetta had 

thirty days, or until Friday, January 20, 2012, to file a notice 

of appeal. Caravetta filed her notice of appeal on Monday, 

January 23, 2012, thirty-three days after judgment was entered.

Although Caravetta’s notice of appeal was not timely 

filed, it was filed within the thirty-day excusable neglect 

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i). Further, the 

notice of appeal reflects a request for an extension of the 

thirty-day appeal period. Accordingly, we remand this case to 

the district court for the limited purpose of enabling the court 
3

to determine whether Caravetta has shown excusable neglect or 

good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. The 

record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for 

further consideration. 

REMANDED
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the annual report of Zaxis International Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ivo Heiden, CEO and CFO of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Ivo Heiden

Ivo HeidenCEO and CFODated: April 9, 2009

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zaxis International Inc. and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Jeffrey S. Manning,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:18-cv-110

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendant. Magistrate Judge Vascura

OPINION AND ORDER

On November 16, 2018, Magistrate Judge Vascura issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court overruie Jeffrey

Manning's ("PlaintifT) Statement of Errors and affirm the decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"). R&R, ECF No. 16. Plaintiff

timely objected. Obj., ECF No. 17.

When a party objects to an R&R within the allotted time, the Court "shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1);see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court "may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by

the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The undersigned has reviewed de

novo the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge's R&R, Plaintiffs objection,

and the Commissioner's response, and concludes that the decision of the
Administrative LawJudge ("ALJ") applied the correct legal standard and is

supported by substantial evidence. Blakelyv. Comm'rofSoc. Sec., 581 F.3d

399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiffs sole objection to the R&R is that it erroneously concludes that the

ALJ gave good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for giving Dr.

Clemente's treating source opinions only partial, instead of controlling, weight.

"An ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he

finds the opinion well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in

[the] case record." Wilson v. Comm'r of Sac. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir.

2004) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). The

ALJ must "give good reasons" for declining to afford the treating source opinion

controlling weight. Id.

The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ gave good reasons for giving Dr.

Clemente's opinion only partial weight: namely, that Dr. Clemente's opinion was

inconsistent with other evidence in the record. On objection. Manning points to

portions of the record that would support Dr. Clemente's opinion but fails to

acknowledge other portions of the record that do, indeed, conflict with Dr.

Clemente's opinion. After a review of the record, the Undersigned agrees with

the Magistrate Judge—^theALJ's conclusion that Dr. Clemente's opinion was

inconsistent with the "vast weight of the evidence" and therefore entitled to only

partial weight is supported by substantial evidence.

Case No. 18-cv-110 Page 2 of 3
Accordingly, PiaintifFs objection is OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the

R&R and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. The Cierk is DIRECTED to

enter judgment for Defendant and terminate this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Michael H. Watson

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 18-CV-110 Page 3 of 3
### AA 

## UV~'e~ 

# I1- I -001 iG?Cjla` ~ 

### !Z



### ACGouNT N0. !tH -001$ -3

~ STACK EMISSIONS SURVEY BORAL HENDERSON CLAY PRODUCTS MARSHALL BRICK PLANT MARSHALL, TEXAS JUNE 1986 .

~ 

# eCvul
~ 

# t'f 90 .

~ --- ~

FILE NUMBER 8660-607

Prepared By: Western Environmental Services and Testing, Inc.

P.O. Box 7513 Beaumont, Texas 77706 (409) 899-4515

7• 

## ~SZJMMARY OF RESULTS Kiln Stack Fluoride Test Runs

Run Number 4 6 7 'Stack Flow Rate - ACFM 12993 13179 13173 Stack Flow Rate - DSCFM* 7110 7171 7161 X Water Vapor -% Volume 11.49 11.44 11.69 x CO 2 - Z Volume 3.0 2.5 2.5 Z 0 2 -% Volume 16.0 15.8 15.8 x Excess Air At Sampling Point 293 270 270 Particulates Probe,Cyclone & Filter Gatch (Can) grains/dscf* ----- :z ----- ----- grains/cf - at Stack Conditions (C a t) lbs/hr (C aw ) ----- ----- ----- Total Catch (C grains/dscf* ao ) grains/cf at Stack Conditions (Cau) ---~ ----- lbs/hr (Cax) ----- ----- -----

* 68 ° F., 29.92 "Hg (20 ° C., 760 mm Hg) 8660-607 Q4m



## ~SUMIIMARY OF RESULTS Kiln Stack

I

Fluorides Run 4 Run 6 Run 7 Impinger #1 (mg) 42.63 39.46 38.43 Impinger #2 (mg) 5.55 7.10 6.75 Total (mg) 48.18 46.56 45.18 Total lbs/hr 4.36 4.25 4.06

8660-607 

### -s- 3• JUL-22-1998 16:36 BORAL BRICKS 0 334 480 2415 P.01i01



### Addition to Boral Bricks, Marshall Plant ICR — Added 7/22/98

Appendix B Addendum Source Test Data
Emissions ID from Descriptive Location of Process/Stack ID Production Rate Test Date Source Emissions Test (corresponding During Test

Test to ICR Flow Re ort Dia ram June 1986 Kiln Stack Marshall Plant TKl/ S-5 6.70 tons/hr

~



### .~ ~a 

## % t

Ap:"- 5~~p 

# a

~~ ' .

~ o ~ . 

### i

3 a► ~ 

### `
~ 

### Or %je ~~ ~

Page 1 of.l 

# ~ Added 7/22/98 

## ~ Tf1TAI P - G11
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 4(iii)

                                                                  March 25, 1997

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Subject:    General Electric Capital Services, Inc. Annual Report on  Form  10-K
            for  the  fiscal  year  ended  December 31, 1996  - File No. 0-14804

Dear Sirs:

Neither General Electric Capital Services,  Inc. (the  "Corporation") nor any of
its  subsidiaries  has  outstanding any instrument with respect to its long-term
debt that is not registered with the Commission and under which the total amount
of securities  authorized  exceeds 10% of the total assets of the registrant and
its  subsidiaries on a consolidated  basis. In accordance with paragraph (b) (4)
(iii) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.601),  the Corporation hereby
agrees to furnish to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission,  upon request,  a
copy of each  instrument  which defines the rights of holders of such  long-term
debt.

                                      Very truly yours,

                                      GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.

                                      By: /s/ J.A. Parke
                                      ------------------
                                      J.A. Parke,
                                      Senior Vice President, Finance
Exhibit 32.1



MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE & EQUITY, LLC

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 Municipal Mortgage &
Equity, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael L. Falcone, Chief
Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.



Date: March 25, 2014

| |                                                 |  |  | 
| | ----------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
| |                                                 | 
| | /s/ Michael L. Falcone                          | 
| | Michael L. Falcone                              | 
| | Chief Executive Officer, President and Director | 
|



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC and will be retained by Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4602 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1332 Sharon Copley Road in Sharon Center, 

Ohio, as the ‘‘Emil Bolas Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4602 EH

1 SECTION 1. EMIL BOLAS POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 1332 Sharon Copley Road in 

4 Sharon Center, Ohio, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Emil Bolas Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Emil Bolas Post Of10 fice’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 30 

(legislative day September 29), 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4602 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice’’. in Sharon Center, Ohio, as the ‘‘Emil Bolas Post al Service located at 1332 Sharon Copley Road
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 Science Foundation
 In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting: NAME AND COMMITTEE CODE: MRSEC—Princeton 2nd Year Virtual Site Visit (1203).
 DATE AND TIME: April 21, 2022; 9:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
 PLACE: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 | Virtual.
 TYPE OF MEETING: Part-Open.
 CONTACT PERSON: Dr. Cosima Boswell-Koller, Program Director, Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Room W 9216, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8800.
 PURPOSE OF MEETING: Site visit to provide an evaluation of the progress of the projects at the host site for the Division of Materials Research at the National Science Foundation.
 AGENDA:
 April 21, 2022
9:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m
Brief Charge to Panel
CLOSED.10:00 a.m.-10:10 a.m
Introduction
OPEN.10:10 a.m.-10:55 a.m
Director's Overview
OPEN.10:55 a.m.-11:10 a.m
Discussion/Questions
OPEN.11:10 a.m.-11:30 a.m
IRG-1 Presentation
OPEN.11:30 a.m.-11:35 a.m
Discussion/Questions
OPEN.11:35 a.m.-11:45 a.m
Break
OPEN.11:45 a.m.-12:05 p.m
IRG-2 Presentation
OPEN.12:05 p.m.-12:10 p.m
Discussion/Questions
OPEN.12:10 p.m.-12:35 p.m
Education and Outreach, Diversity Plan
OPEN.12:35 p.m.-12:45 p.m
Discussion/Questions
OPEN.12:45 p.m.-01:30 p.m
Working Lunch
CLOSED.01:30 p.m.-02:30 p.m
Poster Session
OPEN.02:30 p.m.-02:45 p.m
Site Visit Discussion
OPEN.02:45 p.m.-03:30 p.m
Executive Session
CLOSED.03:30 p.m.-04:00 p.m
Debriefing
OPEN.04:00 p.m
Adjourn
 REASON FOR CLOSING: The work being reviewed during closed portions of the virtual site visit include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the project. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
 Dated: January 14, 2022. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.


[FR Doc. 2022-01091 Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit 24










                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS






We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration 
statement of Raytech Corporation and subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File 
No. 33-42420) of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph 
related to the Company's ability to continue as a going concern, 
dated March 9, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial 
statements of Raytech Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 28, 
1997 and December 29, 1996 and for each of the three fiscal years in 
the period ended December 28, 1997, which report is included in this 
Annual Report on Form 10-K.






                                   COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Stamford, Connecticut
March 13, 1998
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6847

BENNY EDWARD LEE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

D. SCOTT DODRILL, Warden, L.S.C.I. Butner,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-167-5-3F)

Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benny Edward Lee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Benny Edward Lee appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. We note that, even if the district court had jurisdiction

to review Lee’s claim under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), the sentence would not be in error because his 108-month

sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum. See

United States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 2001

WL 995333 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2001) (No. 01-5838). Thus, any such claim

would lack merit. We affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Lee v. Dodrill, No. CA-01-167-5-3F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2001). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IRIS STEP 3 INTERAGENCY COMMENTS

OMB Staff Working Comments on EPA’s Toxicological Review of Urea [dated June, 2010] 

and Draft Charge to External Reviewers 

June 28, 2010

General Science Comments:

• The outcome of EPA’s review is that the data are not sufficient for the development of an 

RfC, not sufficient for the development of an RfD and inadequate for a determination of 

carcinogenic potential. It is our understanding that it is now IRIS policy to send all draft 

IRIS profiles to contractor-led external peer review panels, or more robust peer review 

mechanisms for review. 

o It is unclear to us why EPA would allocate appropriated funds for even a contractorled external peer review panel for the review of a document that essentially makes 

findings of inadequate data. To save resources (as well as staff and interagency 

reviewers time), perhaps getting agreement from EPA internal reviewers could be 

sufficient for such a determination. If EPA felt some type of external review was 

needed, perhaps EPA could easily reach out to some members of the BOSC to get 

their endorsement of the findings. This could be done through a quick letter review, 

rather than paying contractors and other external reviewers for participation in a 

public meeting.

o To inform future determinations such as this one, it would be most helpful to the 

public, internal agency reviewers, interagency reviewers, and expert reviewers, if 

EPA could provide basic criteria describing the minimum data set that would be 

needed for RfD/RfC and cancer quantification. The development of such criteria 

should ideally include opportunity for public input and comment. If EPA could put 

together even a rough sketch of what this would look like, if EPA continues forward 

with the review of urea, EPA could use the opportunity to get public, interagency and 

expert input regarding these criteria. These criteria could then be applied in the future 

and might streamline the resources and staff efforts put towards creating a 

toxicological review which makes only a finding of insufficient data.

o If EPA were to spend the resources to empanel experts, EPA should at least consider 

asking the experts what future studies should be undertaken to address the data gaps.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard A. Waldron, Chief Financial Officer of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based
on my knowledge:

         (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this
         certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
         with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Registrant.

Date: April 30, 2004                               /s/ Richard A. Waldron
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                     Richard A. Waldron
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
will be retained by SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Francis *v.*State.

Opinion delivered May 28, 1928.

*R. W. 3me, Jr.,*for appellant.

*3. W. Applegate,*Attorney General, and *Darden Moose,*Assistant, for appellee.

Kirby, J.

These appeals are from judgments of conviction of appellant for possessing a still and manufacturing whiskey. These cases are consolidated here.

It is insisted for reversal that the testimony is insufficient to support the judgment, and that the court erred in compelling appellant to go to trial in the absence of his witnesses.

The testimony shows that the sheriff and his posse had come out to where this still was situated, and found it in operation on the day in question, the appellant being present in and about the still, and pouring water from the branch on the stillworm in the trough. He had on overalls, and was smutty and greasy, as though he had been working about it. Two empty kegs were found in his car.

He testified that he was a farmer, lived 20 miles away, and had come down to the still to get some whiskey. Accounted for his appearance by saying that he had had trouble with his oar before arriving, and had put on his overalls and fixed it, getting grease and dirt on his clothing.

*432It is argued that a list of Ms witnesses bad been given to the sheriff, but they had not been subpoenaed and were not present at the trial, and that he would have been able to show by them that he did not own the still or have it in possession.

The record does not show that he objected to going to trial, nor did he make a motion for continuance because of the absence of his witnesses, and, such being the case, he is not in position to complain about the matter here *Brown*v. *State,*169 Ark. 324, 274 S. W. 1.

The testimony is meager as to his ownership or possession of the still, but he was present while the still was in operation, was pouring water on the worm and assisting in the manufacture of liquor that was being run at the time, and there was a quantity of mash on hand and enough operatives assisting to complete the manufacture of the mash into whiskey.

The testimony is sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment in each case is affirmed.