alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul H. Schmitt, Chief Financial Officer of M-Wave, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
      ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: May 12, 2003                                /s/ Paul H. Schmitt
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                        Paul H. Schmitt
                                                        Chief Financial Officer


                                       33
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 21, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 21, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0017. KINDRED NURSING CENTERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al. v. MICHAEL JOSEPH CHRZANOWSKI et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 14A2392
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin WINBUSH, a/k/a Good Game, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7527

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 23, 2017

Decided: May 10, 2017

Calvin Winbush, Appellant Pro Se. Erik Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF THE UNIT*169ED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Winbush seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 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 motion 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 Winbush has not made the requisite showing. Winbush contends that the district court’s application of Sentencing Guidelines enhancements based on facts that were neither admitted by him nor found by a jury violated the rule announced in *Alleyne v. United States,*— U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). But *Alleyne*pertains only to facts that increase a defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence, and is not relevant in Winbush’s case. 133 S.Ct. at 2155. Furthermore, *Alleyne*did not “correct” *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 233, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), but rather, explicitly affirmed the discretion of a district court to impose a sentence within the range prescribed by statute, 133 S.Ct. at 2163. Finally, we perceive no debatable issue in the district court’s resolution of Winbush’s § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing because Winbush’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel lack legal merit. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6188 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6188

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 420 Highway 17 North in Surfside Beach, South Carolina, as the 
              ``Nancy Yount Childs Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. NANCY YOUNT CHILDS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 420 Highway 17 North in Surfside Beach, South Carolina, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Nancy Yount Childs Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Nancy 
Yount Childs Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6188

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 420 Highway 17 North in Surfside Beach, South Carolina, as the 
              ``Nancy Yount Childs Post Office Building''.
```
04/27/2012 10:35 FAX 2024935142 

04/20/2012 10:17 FAX 3107256816 

FAA 

AWP-:7 

-+ OMS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF BEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC tJ!Z 

In the Matter of Flying High, LLC, FAA Docket No. !'To be Assigned) 

DMS No.: FAA 2011-1292 

Respondent 

FAA Region: Western Pacific 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

MOTION 1'0 DISMISS 

To: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin and RespOndent: 

Pursu.antto 14 C.F.R. 13.218(£)(2), ComplainantFedera!Aviation 

Administration, through counsel, hereby files this Motion to Dismiss. This motion is 

based on the fact the parties have settled this matter, therefore a hearing is no lo11ger 

required. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Adam 

/~~iL Runkel 

Attorney · 

Dated: APR 2 0 2012 

141002/003 

141002 
04/27/2012 10:35 FAX 2024935142 

04/20/2012 10:17 FAX 3107256816 

FAA 

AWP-7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

+ OMS 

I hereby certify that on this date I sent. via United States mail, postage prepaid~ the 

executed original and one copy. as well as one copy by facsimile, of the 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTlON TO DIS:MJSS, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue. SW 

Washington, DC 205~1 

Attn: Hearing J)ocket Clerk, AGC·430 

Wilbur \llright Building-SuitEl 2Wl 000 

Facsimile: (202) 493-5142 

And by facsimile only to: 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-230 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

I :furrh.er certify that on this date I sent via United States mail, postage prepaid, a 

true copy of the COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, addressed as follows: 

Dated: APR 20 2012 

~~zf~ JeffKam6erg. Legal T 

' 

Flying High. LLC 

Attn: Sean BeJtjamin Cooke~ Manager 

3309 E. Milky Way 

Gilbert. AZ 85295 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

Federal AviatioD Administration 

Westem~Pacific Region 

Lawndale, California 

2 

~ 003/003 

r4l 003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0696

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BO BRYAN MICHEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 11, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 9 2024

09/09/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0696
Pauline RANDLE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. William G. PRUMMELL, Jr., Sheriff & State of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3349

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Andrea Lea CHARTERS, a/k/a Andrea L. Charters, a/k/a Andrea Lea Aronovitz, a/k/a Andrea Charters, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Atessa SHAHMIRZADI; Potomac Law Group, PLLC; Harvard University, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1340

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2017

Decided: August 2, 2017

Andrea Lea Charters, Appellant Pro Se. Ronda Brown Esaw, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Andrea Lea Charters seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her federal civil complaint. 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, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by filing an amended complaint, *see Galustian v. Peter,*591 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) rather than Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 where plaintiff sought to add party by amending complaint); *Mayes v. Rapoport,*198 F.3d 457, 462 n.11 (4th Cir. 1999) (same), we conclude that the order Charters seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Charters to amend her complaint. *Goode,*807 F.3d at 630. 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 AND REMANDED*
#### John Cramer, 2d, Receiver, etc., Appellant, *v.*William H. Blood, Respondent.

To entitle a judgment creditor to attack a disposition made of the debtor’s property, he must be able to show that the disposition was such that something remains of it or its proceeds, which ought to be applied upon his judgment. Where, therefore, one received from the debtor’s wife the avails of his property in her hands with intent to defraud a creditor, with an agreement to retain or use it as the debtor and wife might want, but, before the recovery of judgment for the debt by the creditor, he has returned it or paid it out as directed by the debtor, and has settled with and been discharged from all claim by the latter, he is not liable to the judgment creditor therefor.

(Argued January 5, 1872;

decided May term, 1872.)

This action was brought by plaintiff as receiver of the property, etc., of one William A. Lowd, appointed in proceedings supplementary to execution in an action brought by John W. Smith against Lowd. Lowd’s wife had in her hands the avails of his property, which had been disposed of by defendant with intent to defraud Smith. Defendant, with the same fraudulent intent, induced Mrs. Lowd (without the knowledge of Lowd) to place in his hands $200 of the avails, for the use of Lowd and wife, as they Slight want. Defendant paid out most of the money at Lowd’s request, and upon a note signed by him as surety, applying a small portion upon an account, and before the recovery of Smith’s judgment, settled with Lowd and wife, and was discharged from all claims.

Plaintiff obtained judgment, which, upon appeal to the General Term, was reversed.

*685
      *E. F. Bullard*for the appellant.

*A. Pond*for the respondent.

Gray and Leonard, CO., read for affirmance.

All concur.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute against plaintiff, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
     CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED
     STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 FOUND ON
     PAGES 3-5 OF THE COMPANY'S  FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            779,043
<SECURITIES>                                       13,267
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,771,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (178,000)
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,644,541
<PP&E>                                          1,621,189
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,051,142)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  4,991,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,626,313
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          959,289
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,038,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    4,991,791
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,333,671
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,109,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,145,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 16,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    31,789
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                31,789
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       31,789
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .00



</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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/A for the quarterly period ending March
31, 2004 (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: June 18, 2004
    
    /s/ Gerald E. Bisbee, JrName: Gerald E. Bisbee, JrTitle: Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Frederick National Laboratory Advisory Committee to the National Cancer Institute, February 24, 2022, 1:00 p.m. to February 24, 2022, 4:30 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 4, 2022, FR Doc 2022-02367, 87 FR 6617.                

This notice is being amended to change the meeting end time from 4:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting will now be held from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.

Dated: February 14, 2022.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03433 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Roger AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71033

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

William J. Baker, Attorney, Moreno & Associates, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner

Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

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 **

Roger Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and reissue its decision denying his appeal from an immigration judge’s final order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder,*611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reissue its August 2014 decision, where Aguilar acknowledged in his declaration that he received notice of the decision and he does not allege ineffective assistance of counsel. *See Singh v. Napolitano,*649 F.3d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 2011) (the BIA has reissued decisions where an alien has shown lack of notice due to administrative error or ineffective assistance of counsel).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,181
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,649
<INVENTORY>                                     47,626
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,970
<PP&E>                                          42,415
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,177
<BONDS>                                        151,034
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     52,279
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                     (29,254)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,236
<SALES>                                        140,245
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,245
<CGS>                                           94,749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (16,246)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,183
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,063)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,887
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,176)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>