alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kenneth NEWKIRK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7097

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*833PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Newkirk seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order directing New-kirk to pay the filing fee or explain why he cannot and denying a host of motions without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Newkirk seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 7, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Alan F. Schultz    
|                      |  |  |  | Alan F. Schultz        
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Marilyn Spanbock, Respondent, v The Fifty Fourth Street Condominium et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[771 NYS2d 10]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered January 2, 2003, which denied the motion of defendants The Fifty Fourth Street Condominium and the Board of Managers of The Fifty Fourth Street Condominium and the cross motion of defendants 54 Satellite Co. LLC, Allen *396S. Green, Buchbinder and Warren, LLC, Norman Buchbinder and Eugene Warren for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

According to the complaint, plaintiff sustained injuries when a negligently installed air conditioner located in a third-floor window of an apartment in defendant condominium’s building fell upon her. The motion by the condominium defendants and cross motion by the managing agent defendants for summary judgment were properly denied in light of triable issues as to whether the air conditioner in question was, in fact, negligently installed, whether the moving defendants had constructive notice of any such negligence *(see Giuffrida v Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co.,*279 AD2d 403 [2001]), and whether any negligence on their part was a proximate cause of the. accident *(see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]). Nor were the moving defendants entitled to summary judgment upon their cross claims for contractual indemnification against defendant Chen, the owner of the apartment from which the air conditioner fell. While the moving defendants seek to rely on an indemnification provision contained in an alterations agreement signed by Chen, that provision only applies where damages are incurred “as a result of the work” covered by the alterations agreement. It is not clear, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs injuries are indeed attributable to such work. Finally, the managing agent defendants were not entitled to summary judgment upon their cross claim against the condominium defendants since their claim is premised upon provisions of the management agreement, which has not been included in the record. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
Unique List of E-Mail Addresses

Steam Electric Questionnaire

alan.day@fpl.com; alanarnold@alliantenergy.com; andrew.walz@aes.com; 

aretherford@vectren.com; arwood@aep.com; barb.irwin@dynegy.com; 

bbromley@empiredistrict.com; boyds@dteenergy.com; browns@firstenergycorp.com; 

bruceparker@electricenergyinc.com; CCNPP-PGM@constallation.com; 

cdiekvoss@rpu.org; cheryl.hess@conectiv.com; chhuling@southernco.com; 

christian.kiernan@fpl.com; nicholas.bach@fpl.com; crberry@southernco.com; 

dan.casiraro@srpnet.com; david.abrams@aes.com; david.lee@we-energies.com; 

david.robinson@fpl.com; dawebb@midamerican.com; dawilli2@wcnoc.com; 

dfulkers@ovec.com; donn.fukuda@heco.com; dsimmers@acpowercolver.com; 

dzerr@empiredistrict.com; Earl.Enzor@pgnmail.com; 

edward.f.tracey@constellation.com; foxr@southwestgen.com; 

fred.carl@blackhillscorp.com; gdaeger@aes.com; genlmgr4@netscape.net; 

jacrawford@cmsenergy.com; Jamie.Pierce@fpl.com; 

jared.morrison@westarenergy.com; jdwiegand@midamerican.com; jeff.harter@aes.com; 

Jeff.Tucker@pacificorp.com; jgschultzen@midamerican.com; jhantz@entergy.com; 

jlapcev@alleghenyenergy.com; joey.henderson@pse.com; jovick@southernco.com; 

jvisscher@hollandbpw.com; kalle.kuether@mdu.com; kayoung@tecoenergy.com; 

Kent.Stoffle@cengllc.com; Kimberly.Mireles@luminant.com; krubin@ladwp.com; 

lpjohnson@tva.gov; may.johnson@conectiv.com; mbpodany@midamerican.com; 

mdimauro@mmwec.org; meharrel@santeecooper.com; michael.winkler@eon-us.com; 

mwbowden@southernco.com; naevans@pplweb.com; neal.mckenney@fpl.com; 

palmeag@nu.com; rcarter@sscogen.com; rgould@smud.org; Robert.Wylie@dukeenergy.com; russell.furnari@pseg.com; schuttjm@oge.com; scomensk@southernco.com; 

Scott.Davis@aps.com; Scott.Heidtbrink@kcpl.com; scwhitworth@ameren.com; 

sfrank@rrienergy.com; t_hogan@wvpa.com; tcmoorer@southernco.com; 

ted.long@nrgenergy.com; tgraumann@otpco.com; Thomas.HardingJr@cengllc.com; 

vldanner@midamerican.com; whowell@empiredistrict.com; 

William.Rossiter@constellation.com;
Amy GARCIA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Karina CODORNIU, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2036

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 10, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1318 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1318

  To restrict the imposition by the Secretary of Homeland Security of 
   fines, penalties, duties, or tariffs applicable only to coastwise 
  voyages, or prohibit otherwise qualified non-United States citizens 
  from serving as crew, on specified vessels transporting passengers 
 between the State of Washington and the State of Alaska, to address a 
Canadian cruise ship ban and the extraordinary impacts of the COVID-19 
        pandemic on Alaskan communities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 2021

  Mr. Young introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To restrict the imposition by the Secretary of Homeland Security of 
   fines, penalties, duties, or tariffs applicable only to coastwise 
  voyages, or prohibit otherwise qualified non-United States citizens 
  from serving as crew, on specified vessels transporting passengers 
 between the State of Washington and the State of Alaska, to address a 
Canadian cruise ship ban and the extraordinary impacts of the COVID-19 
        pandemic on Alaskan communities, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Alaska Tourism Recovery Act''.

SEC. 2. VOYAGE DEEMED TO BE FOREIGN.

    (a) Criteria.--A roundtrip voyage transporting passengers between a 
port or place in the State of Alaska and a port or place in the State 
of Washington is deemed a foreign voyage for purposes of U.S. law, if 
the voyage--
            (1) is made by a passenger vessel to which sections 3507 
        and 3508 of title 46, United States Code, apply; and
            (2) which occurs during the period described in subsection 
        (b).
    (b) Duration of Applicability.--A voyage deemed to be a foreign 
voyage under subsection (a) is a voyage which begins not later than any 
date prior to February 28, 2022, on which the Government of Canada or 
its political subdivisions, or any port or province in Canada, 
prohibits a passenger vessel to which sections 3507 and 3508 of title 
46, United States Code, apply from entering, berthing, or docking in 
Canadian waters of the Pacific Coast due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
                                 <all>
```
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1461 

To provide transparency regarding waivers granted to individuals from Executive orders related to ethics commitments or compliance, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2021 

Mr. LYNCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To provide transparency regarding waivers granted to individuals from Executive orders related to ethics commitments or compliance, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘White House Ethics 

5 Transparency Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROCEDURE FOR WAIVERS AND AUTHORIZATIONS 

7 RELATING TO ETHICS REQUIREMENTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, not later than 30 days after an officer or emVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:44 Apr 16, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1461.IH H1461

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1461 IH

1 ployee issues or approves a waiver or authorization pursu2 ant to any Executive order related to ethics commitments 

3 or compliance by covered employees, such officer or em4 ployee shall— 

5 (1) transmit a written copy of such waiver or 

6 authorization to the Director of the Office of Gov7 ernment Ethics; and 

8 (2) make a written copy of such waiver or au9 thorization available to the public on the website of 

10 the employing agency of the covered employee. 

11 (b) OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS PUBLIC

12 AVAILABILITY.—Not later than 30 days after receiving a 

13 written copy of a waiver or authorization under subsection 

14 (a)(1), the Director of the Office of Government Ethics 

15 shall make such waiver or authorization available to the 

16 public on the website of the Office of Government Ethics. 

17 (c) DEFINITION OF COVERED EMPLOYEE.—In this 

18 section, the term ‘‘covered employee’’— 

19 (1) means a non-career Presidential or Vice 

20 Presidential appointee, non-career appointee in the 

21 Senior Executive Service (or other SES-type sys22 tem), or an appointee to a position that has been ex23 cepted from the competitive service by reason of 

24 being of a confidential or policymaking character 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1461 IH

1 (Schedule C and other positions excepted under com2 parable criteria) in an executive agency; and 

3 (2) does not include any individual appointed as 

4 a member of the Senior Foreign Service or solely as 

5 a uniformed service commissioned officer. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2


                           Immtech International, Inc.

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and 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 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary C. Parks, Treasurer, Secretary and 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
      2)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

                          /s/ Gary C. Parks
                          ----------------------------------------------------
                          Name:    Gary C. Parks
                          Title:   Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial
                                   Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                   Officer)
                          Date:    November 14, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00044-CV

Rayford F. Perry

v.

Steven Swift, Brad Livingston, Jessi 

Keith, and Goldie Jacques

§

§

§

§

From the 89th District Court

of Wichita County (181,533-C)

June 9, 2016

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker____________________

 Justice Sue Walker
#### Michael Orlando COOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George T. SOLOMON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6740

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Michael 0. Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Orlando Cook seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C'. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent, “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional light.” 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cook has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Cook’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the -appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
May  6th,  1999



Pomeroy  Computer  Resources,  Inc.
1020  Petersburg  Road
Hebron,  Kentucky  41048

Gentlemen:

     Reference  is  made to that certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated May 6th,
1999,  and an Assignment and Assumption Agreement of even date herewith pursuant
to  which  the  undersigned,  SYSTEMS  ATLANTA COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS, INC. (Seller)
sold,  assigned,  transferred  and  conveyed to POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES, INC.
(Purchaser No. 1") to the extent permitted, its interest in certain contracts as
set  forth  on  Exhibit  A attached to said Assignment and Assumption Agreement.
Pursuant  to  such  Assignment  and  Assumption Agreement, Seller agreed to take
additional  action  to  carry  out  the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement to
enable  Purchaser  No.  1  to  perform  the  obligations  of  Seller under these
contracts  and  to  allow  Purchaser No. 1 to enforce Sellers rights under these
contracts.

     In  order  to  fulfill  this obligation, the undersigned hereby agrees that
until  such  time  as  a  new  contract  with these customers is obtained, or an
assignment  is  approved by them, Purchaser No. 1 is hereby engaged by Seller to
perform  Sellers  obligations  under  the  contracts  in  consideration  for all
remaining  amounts  to  be  paid to Seller under such contracts and/or any other
consideration  to  be  provided to Seller under the contracts.  Seller agrees to
cooperate with Purchaser No. 1 in performing these contracts and in dealing with
the  customers,  including  such  billing  procedures,  invoicing  procedures,
collection  procedures and other bookkeeping issues or customer relations issues
as  Purchaser  No.  1  may  deem necessary and appropriate to fulfill its duties
under  the  contracts.  To  acknowledge  your  agreement  and  acceptance to the
foregoing, please execute the duplicate original enclosed herewith and return it
to  the  undersigned.

                              Sincerely,

                              SYSTEMS  ATLANTA  COMMERCIAL  SYSTEMS,  INC.


                              By:  ___________________________________________
                                    B.  Scott  Dobson,  Vice-President

Agreed and Accepted this 6th day of May, 1999

                              POMEROY  COMPUTER  RESOURCES,  INC.


                              By:  ___________________________________________
                                   Stephen E. Pomeroy, Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul Broude, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Yak Communications Inc.;

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

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

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

a) designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant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 the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which 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 control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |     |  |                            
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: April 21, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul Broude            
|                     |  |     |  | Paul Broude                
|                     |  |     |  | Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000925252
<NAME> SIGNATURE BRANDS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                           1,270
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,573
<PP&E>                                          17,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,536
<BONDS>                                        149,156
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,985
<SALES>                                        213,255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               213,255
<CGS>                                          147,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (349)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    748
<INCOME-TAX>                                       449
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                299
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       299
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>