alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| ·   | Conduct      themselves in an honest and ethical manner, including the ethical handling      of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and      professional relationships. |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Prepare      periodic reports filed with the public, the SEC and other regulatory      agencies in an accurate, complete, fair and understandable      manner. |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Comply      with the SEC, Nasdaq, and other regulatory bodies as well as Federal,      State, and local government laws and regulations having jurisdiction on      Pacific Continental Corporation andindividuals. |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | To      not act upon or disclose “non-public material” information prior to it      being made generally available to thepublic. |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Respect      the confidentiality of sensitive information revealed during the course of      his/her job responsibilities; and, except on a need to know basis, to not      reveal or discuss sensitive information unless previously authorized or      legally obligated to do so. |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Require      ethical behavior among subordinates and peers within the      organization(s). |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | To      not use corporate information, assets, opportunities or his/her position      with Pacific Continental for personal gain or  privilege. |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | To      annually certify in writing to the Board of Directors compliance with this      “Code of Ethics.” |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
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 Yak Communications Inc. (the Company)
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Zwebner, Chief Executive Officer and principal 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, 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, 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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 23, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles Zwebner    
|                         |  |     |  | Charles Zwebner        
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
J.W., the father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

No. 4D18-620

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

YONG I. FENLON, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NA VY, Respondent.

______________________

2014

- 3145

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. SF

- 0432

- 04

- 0076 -X- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R

This court received Yong I. Fenlon ’s reply brief in this petition for review on August 29, 2014. On September 2, 2014, this court received an additional brief from Fenlon

, which we construe as a motion to file a supplement al reply brief.
Upon consider ation thereof

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 14-3145 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2014FENLON v. NAVY 2

The motion is granted

. Fenlon’s supplemental reply brief received on September 2, 2014 is accepted for filing.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s 30 Case: 14-3145 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 09/26/2014
Ledon HALL v. STATE

CR-15-0517

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017

Affirmed.
Mitchell Tyrone GEORGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-59

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nico-Lachad Rickenan MONROE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6030

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Nico-Lachad Rickenan Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Michael A. DeFranco, Robert Michael Hamilton, Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nico-Lachad Rickenan Monroe seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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, 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 *104procedural 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

Based on the arguments presented in his informal brief, we conclude that Monroe has not made the requisite showing. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b); *see also Jackson v. Lightsey,*775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting the importance of Rule 34(b) and reiterating that the court limits its review to the issues preserved in the informal brief). 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Lorena CANALES-REYES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2162

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 13, 2017

Decided: April 26, 2017

*191John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J, Scadron, Assistant Director, Meadow Platt, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lorena Canales-Reyes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits, the transcript of Canales-Reyes’ merits hearing, and her supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Canales-Reyes*(B.I.A. Sept. 9, 2016). 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<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>                                          67,405
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         118,249
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                40,498
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    112,685
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,568,535
<ALLOWANCE>                                     38,529
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,209,553
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,280,062
<SHORT-TERM>                                   172,713
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            132,980
<LONG-TERM>                                    289,824
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       144,169
<OTHER-SE>                                     187,797
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,209,553
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 44,986
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,877
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,095
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                52,958
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,287
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,213
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,745
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 24,029
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,553
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      12,900
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                     39,529
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                38,047
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,590
<RECOVERIES>                                       813
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               35,120
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            35,120
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
1

From: Paul Chakroff

Sent: 6/24/2015 7:22 PM

To: Dunham, Sarah

Cc: Timothy Bower

Subject: Question from today's Webinar on the Clean Power Plan

Sarah Dunham,

Thank you for your informative presentation at the NAEP / Vermont Law webinar this 

afternoon.

One point of clarification please. By way of context - - I live and work on St. Croix, US Virgin 

Islands.

While listening to your presentation, I searched for and found EPA's web page on the October 

2014 Supplemental Proposal ( http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheetclean-power-plan-supplemental-proposal ).

Joining the webinar from under a ceiling fan and in front of a computer running off electricity 

generated by combustion of #2 diesel, imagine my surprise when I read:

 EPA is aware of two potentially affected sources in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

 however the sources have not operated for several years and are not operating now 

 so the agency is not proposing a goal for this territory.

I thought the Clean Power Plan applied to all fossil fuel fired power plants, not just coal-fired 

power plants. 

If the USVI is exempt due to size or fuel source, I may understand, but that should be reflected 

on the EPA web page.

To be fair to our local utility, I think the VI Water and Power Authority (WAPA) will meet 

the very modest 2030 threshold in the Clean Power Plan with renewables already on grid or in 

the pipeline. That notwithstanding, I think the territory should be included in the Plan, not 

exempted from it.

Inclusion will a) keep the pressure on the utility to accept higher grid penetration of 

renewables, and b) allow WAPA and USVI to rightfully receive the national recognition it 

deserves when it meets the 2030 milestone (albeit, a standard more easily achievable on a 

<150 MW peak grid than a multi-GigaWatt State grid).

Re. point a), last night in a public meeting, Black & Veatch, the WAPA contractor preparing a 

USVI Integrated (energy) Resource Plan made the point that WAPA will not likely be subject to 
2

EPA's Clean Power Plan. I.e., we are already planning our 20-year future energy portfolio on the 

basis that we are not subject to federal clean power goals.

Re. point b), Territorial law (VI Act 7075 Sec. 1152) requires WAPA to meet the following 

renewable energy goals. I.e. the federal Clean Power Plan is not an imposition greater than that 

already imposed on the utility by the territorial government. If we meet the territorial law, we 

should easily meet the federal Clean Power Plan goal. 

I look forward to your position on why EPA feels USVI should be exempt from the Clean Power 

Plan. Certainly, as an island territory surrounded by rising and warming seas, we have more 

at risk from climate change than many of the states covered by the Plan. And, imposition of the 

federal goal has no greater socioeconomic impact than milestones already imposed by the 

territorial government (enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor).

Thank you,

Paul

Paul Chakroff, MSc, CEP

Pe Che Consulting, Inc.

paulchakroff@gmail.com

340-626-0983

This image cannot currently be displayed.
#### John STEELMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Shawn HATTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-56507

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

John Steelman, Pro Se

Amanda Lloyd, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John Steelman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a 2009 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings denying parole and deferring his next parole hearing in accordance with California Penal Code § 3041.5 (“Marsy’s Law”).

This court issued a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) on whether application of Marsy’s Law to delay Steelman’s next parole hearing violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. We vacate the COA as improvidently granted and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See Nettles v. Grounds,*830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), *cert. denied,*580 U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 645, 196 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); *Phelps v. Alameda,*366 F.3d 722, 727-28, 730 (9th Cir. 2004) (merits panel has the power to rule on the propriety of a COA).

The dismissal of this appeal does not preclude Steelman from pursuing conditions of confinement claims in a properly filed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

We treat Steelman’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the COA. So *622treated, the motion is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); *Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0543

 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM202AD

A320-57-1169 --- 1/12/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Tommy W. ANDERSON v. STATE

CR-16-0185

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

125)IV-C-39 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:24 AM Sheet 125 of 142 
P.2 

Dennis Crumpler 

05/05/00 02:58 PM 

To: ryan_landis@mckennacuneo.com 

337-C- ^ 

cc: 

Subject: Re: NSR Reform - Recent Developments 

Mr. Landis, we expect to promulgate or take some action this calendar year on all provisions proposed in 

1996 and noticed for further comment on July 24,1998. There is likely to be a concurrent proposal for a 

utility sector-based NSR program compliance alternative. You might want to contact Chuck Knauss at 

Swidler & Berlin 202-424-7644; or Lesley Ritts at Hogan & Hartson 202-637-5600 about non-utility issues 

and Bill Bumpers at Baker & Botts;202-639-77i8 about utility issues. There may be limited stakeholder 

meetings coming up on certain aspects of the packages. Meetings are not scheduled right now, but the 

folks mentioned above will know the details when they become available 

ryanJandis@mckennacuneo.com 

ryan_landis@mckenn 

acuneo.com 

05/02/00 09:34 PM 

To: Dennis Crumpler/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: Subject: NSR Reform - Recent Developments 

Mr. Crumpler, 

I'm very interested in finding out about any new developments in the area of 

New Source Review Reform - particularly with respect to the possible 

promulgation of the 1996 "reform package" (I thought I read an article which 

mentioned EPA may be releasing some of the program in 2000). 

I would really appreciate any assistance with respect to publications, EPA 

advisory opinions, articles, etc..or any reference sources that you may know 

about. 

Thank you, 

Ryan Landis 

W^Wf^Hlf^fwwwwWwWw •Confidentiality Notice* 

This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of McKenna & Cuneo, L.L.P. 

which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If 

you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content 

of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 

immediately by email and delete the original message.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31(a)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John D. Bair, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Data
Systems, 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such 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 fiscal 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: October 22, 2003


/s/ John D. Bair
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer