alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Willie Lee CASPER, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6455

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Willie Lee Casper, III, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Lee Casper, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 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, 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 Casper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Casper’s motions for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*
#### Teresa MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6995

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Teresa Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Young, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

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.

PER CURIAM:

Teresa Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Miller that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Miller has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s motions to admit additional evidence and for disclosure of the presentence report, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

*826We 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 31, 2017

s0522 

# Order

Clerk May 31, 2017

153855

- 6(99)(101)

WILLIAM P. FROLING REVOCABLE LIVING

TRUST, by its Trustee, WILLIAM P. FROLING,

Plaintiff

- Counterdefendant

- Appellant/

Cross

- Appellee,

v SC: 153855

COA: 322019

Macomb CC: 2013

- 003083

- CZ

PELICAN PROPERTY, LLC,

Defendant

- Counterplaintiff

- Appellee/

Cross

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

WILLIAM P. FROLING REVOCABLE LIVING

TRUST, by its Trustee, WILLIAM P. FROLING,

Plaintiff

- Counterdefendant

- Appellant/

Cross

- Appellee,

v SC: 153856

COA: 323074

Macomb CC: 2013

- 00 3083

- CZ

PELICAN PROPERTY, LLC,

Defendant

- Counterplaintiff

- Appellee/

Cross

- Appellant,

and

CAREN BURDI and EARL, EARL & ROSE,

P.L.L.C.,

Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November

30, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order

was entered erroneously. T he motion to hold t he case in abeyance is DENIED.

W ILDER

, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
**EXHIBIT 32(2)**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the quarterly report of RARE Hospitality International, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, W. Douglas Benn, Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, 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 Registrant.

 

 
| Date: | August 5, 2005 | /s/ W. Douglas Benn |  
 
W. Douglas Benn

 
 
Executive Vice President, Finance and

 
Chief Financial Officer

  |
|-------|----------------|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 07-16-00372-CR

Isaac J. Adams

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee 

§

§

§

§

From the 432nd District Court 

 of Tarrant County

November 30, 2017

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated November 30, 2017, it is ordered, 

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that 

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
No. 07-16-00373-CR

Isaac J. Adams

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee 

§

§

§

§

From the 432nd District Court 

 of Tarrant County

November 30, 2017

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated November 30, 2017, it is ordered, 

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that 

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
No. 07-16-00374-CR

Isaac J. Adams

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee 

§

§

§

§

From the 432nd District Court 

 of Tarrant County

November 30, 2017

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated November 30, 2017, it is ordered, 

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that 

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7093

DENISE HARGROVE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

LAURA OVERSTREET, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (5:07-hc-02140-D) 

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Denise Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant 

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Denise Hargrove seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude Hargrove 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 contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# certificate of analysis

Property of Ciba Specialty Chemicals. Not to be disclosed to third parties without previous consent of Ciba Specialty Chemicals. PRODUCT: CGI 725

ITEM No.: 0568238 Lot.

- Nr. 30073 FC 6 (Vers. 1

- 9 )

DATE: 20 .07.200 6

Test Item Spec Vers. 1

- 9 Analytical Method Remarks

Appearance powder powder Visual assess ment

Water

content % 0.2 2 % K. F. titration

Chloride max. mg/kg <2 mg/kg argentometric titration

Weight loss max. % 0.26 % gravimetry 60°C, 2 hrs, vacuum

Acid content max. mmole/kg <0.1 mmole/kg acid/base titration refers to fresh sample only

Pu rity min. area

- % 99 ,5 2 area

- % * HPLC

Na max. ppb ppb elemental analysis

K max. ppb ppb ditto

Ca max. ppb ppb ditto

Fe max. ppb ppb ditto

Zn max. ppb ppb ditto

Al max. ppb ppb ditto

Mg max. ppb ppb ditto

Mn max. ppb ppb ditto

Ni max. ppb ppb ditto

Cr max. ppb ppb ditto

Cu max. ppb ppb ditto

*Ratio of Isomers : 99,52 : 0,44 %F/F
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FILED AS
PART OF THE APACHE MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,378
<SECURITIES>                                     4,684
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (660)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,865
<PP&E>                                           3,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,246)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,658
<BONDS>                                             42
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,694
<SALES>                                          3,472
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,472
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (5)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (5)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (5)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
Timothy Justin TACY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4713, 2D18-240

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr. the Chief Executive Officer of
ReGen Biologics, Inc. (the Company), has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March
31, 2003 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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.

|      |  |              |  |                               
|----- |  | ------------ |  | ------------------------------
|Date: |  | May 15, 2003 |  | /s/ Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.     
|      |  |              |  | Name: Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.   
|      |  |              |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer

22
Exhibit 9





Certification of Chief Financial
Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the filing of the
Annual Report on Form 40F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) by New Gold Inc. (the
“Company”), I, Brian W. Penny, as Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 27, 2015



/s/ Brian Penny






Brian
W. Penny
Chief Financial Officer
Ricardo Rene Cortez MORENO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Sergio Hernandez LEMUS, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0851

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SKYLAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

FTL PROPERTY, LLC,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1706

[March 10, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; William W. Haury, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 

19-16579 (18).

Keith D. Silverstein of Keith D. Silverstein, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Terrence P. O’Connor of Morgan, Carratt & O’Connor, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Souhail Steve KMED, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4174

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 09, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is required to make an express and distinct demand for performance before mandamus will be considered. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA2001).

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Daniel Ray Garcia, * From the 106th District Court

of Gaines County,

Trial Court No. 19-5086.

Vs. No. 11-21-00081-CR * June 17, 2021

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02785]

[[Page 7885]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94157; File Nos. SR-MIAX-2021-59, SR-PEARL-2021-57]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities 
Exchange, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule 
Changes To Amend the Fee Schedules To Adopt a Tiered-Pricing Structure 
for Certain Connectivity Fees

February 4, 2022.
    On December 1, 2021, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC 
(``MIAX'') and MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') (collectively, the 
``Exchanges'') each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a 
proposed rule change (File Numbers SR-MIAX-2021-59 and SR-PEARL-2021-
57) to amend the MIAX Fee Schedule and MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule 
to adopt a tiered pricing structure for certain connectivity fees. The 
proposed rule changes were immediately effective upon filing with the 
Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed 
rule changes were published for comment in the Federal Register on 
December 20, 2021.\4\ On January 27, 2022, the Commission temporarily 
suspended the proposed rule changes and instituted proceedings under 
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or 
disapprove the proposed rule changes.\6\ On February 1, 2022, the 
Exchanges withdrew the proposed rule changes (SR-MIAX-2021-59 and SR-
PEARL-2021-57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 93775 (December 14, 
2021), 86 FR 71996 (SR-MIAX-2021-59); 93774 (December 14, 2021), 86 
FR 71952 (SR-PEARL-2021-57).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94088, 87 FR 5901 
(February 2, 2022).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02785 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
November 7, 2012

Mr. Jonathan Moritz Delta Engineering 13 DRBA Way New Castle, DE 19720 jemoritz@delta-engineering.com (302) 325-9351

Introduction :

Delta Engineering, 13 DRBA Way, New Castle, Delaware 19720, submits this petition, under the provisions provided for in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 11, as a petition to grant exemption to Title 14 CFR § 26.11(b) to change “review and a pproval by the FAA Oversight Office” to “review and approval by the FAA Oversight Office or its properly authorized designees for review and approval”. Delta Engineering is requesting this exemption, so that Delta Engineering’s Organization Delegation Authorization (ODA) can approve Electrical Wiring Interconnect System (EWIS) Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) and/or assessments.

Explanation of Relevant Regulations :

Section 26.11(b) states that “Holders of, and applicants for, type certificates, as identified in paragraph (d) of this section must develop Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) for the representative airplane's EWIS in accordance with part 25, Appendix H paragraphs H25.5(a)(1) and (b) of this subchapter in effect on December 10, 2007 for each affected type design, and submit those ICA for review and approval by the FAA Oversight Office . For purposes of this section, the "representative airplane" is the configuration of each model series airp lane that incorporates all variations of EWIS used in production on that series airplane, and all TC-hol der-designed modifications mandated by airworthiness

directive as of the effective date of this rule. Each person specified in paragraph (d) of this section must also review any fuel tank system ICA developed by that person to comply with SFAR 88 to ensure compatibility with the EWIS ICA, including minimizing redundant requirements.”

Public Interest & Safety

The Organization Delegation Authorization has the ability and authority to make approvals on behalf of the FAA for many other areas including Airworthiness Limitations.

This exemption is in the interest of the public as to allow delegation of the EWIS ICA function allowing FAA resources to focus on other area’s when the FAA determines a designee/delegation is capable.

There would be no adverse effect on safety if this petition for exemption was granted.

Jonathan Moritz Delta Engineering