alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 1250 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM031AD
NTM D6 - 48023, R118 --- 7/15/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket **MA Y 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
#### William WILBORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HALIFAX COUNTY (VIRGINIA) SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-1690

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 7, 2017

*321Melvin E. Williams, MEL WILLIAMS PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. R. Craig Wood, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia; Tyler S. Laugh-inghouse, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia; E. Rebecca Gantt, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Wilborn appeals the district court’s order granting the Halifax County School Board’s (“School Board”) motion to dismiss his claims as barred by Virginia’s i’es judicata rule. We affirm.

Wilborn filed suit in state court against the School Board, in which he alleged a violation of his due process rights and breach of contract following the School Board’s decision to terminate his employment. Wilborn later nonsuited his breach-of-contraet claim. The School Board filed a demurrer, and the state court sustained the demurrer and dismissed Wilborn’s due-process claim with prejudice. Wilborn filed a second suit against the School Board, reasserting his previously nonsuit-ed breach-of-contract claim and adding two additional claims. The School Board removed the action to federal district court, asserted a res judicata defense, and moved to dismiss the second complaint. Because Wilborn’s claims involve the same parties and stem from the same conduct or occurrence—his termination—we agree that Virginia’s res judicata rule bars his claims. *See*Va. Sup. Ct. R. 1:6 (res judicata claim. preclusion).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Wilborn v. Halifax Cty. Sch. Bd.,*No. 4:16-cv-00008-JLK-RSB, 2016 WL 2997511 (W.D. Va. May 23, 2016). We grant the Halifax County School Board’s motion to submit this case on the briefs because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
EXHIBIT 32.0

                        LAST MILE LOGISTICS GROUP, INC.

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

         In connection with the annual report of Last Mile Logistics Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Regina R. Flood, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
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; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of and for the periods indicated.

Date:  April 5, 2007                     /s/Regina R. Flood
                                         ------------------
                                         Regina R. Flood
                                         Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer
                                         (Principal Executive Officer)
#### William H. Carpenter, Respondent, *v.*Elmore P. Ross, Appellant.

(Argued November 21, 1872;

decided December 3, 1872.)

*683
      *Francis JKJemcm*for the appellant.

*J. JR. Cox*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

Judgment affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARLEEN CRYSTAL LINFORD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant

- Appellee, No. 15

- 35758

D.C. No. 4:13

- cv

- 00194

- BLW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 9, 2017 ** Portland, Oregon

Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAYES, District Judge. ***

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

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

*** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 13 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL SKarleen Linford appeals the district court ’ s grant of summary judgment to the

United States in this Federal Tort Claims Act case. We have jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Szajer v.

City of Los Angeles , 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011), viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to Linford to determine whether any triable issue of fact exists

and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant law, Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). We affirm.

Linford asserted a negligence claim arising out of injuries she sustained while

riding an all

- terrain vehicle across a cattle guard on nati onal forest land in Idaho.

There is no dispute that, absent willful and want on conduct, the United States is

entitled to immunity under Idaho ’ s recreational use statute, Idaho Code § 36

- 1604(d),

because it allowed Linford to use the national forest land for recreat ional purposes

without charge. There is no genuine issue of materi al fact as to whether the United

States engaged in willful and wanton conduct. The Forest Service ’ s construction

and maintenance of the cattle guard constitutes, at most, mere negligence.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment.

AFFIRM ED

.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1




                            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 Quarterly Report of SCB Computer Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, T.
Scott Cobb, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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



December 13, 2002



By:  /s/ T. Scott Cobb
     -----------------------

        T. Scott Cobb
        President and
     Chief Executive Officer
#### Arash MIRSHOKRAEI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2383

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 30, 2017

Decided: July 7, 2017

Zohreh Mizrahi, MANESH *&*MIZR-AHI, Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant At*732torney General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, Scott M. Marconda, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

■ Before GREGORY* Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arash Mirshokraei, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying

the motion to reopen. *Mosere v. Mukasey, 552*F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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*
Order issued April 1 , 2014

.

In The 

### Court of Appeals For The 

### First District of Texas

_______________ NO. 01
- 1 3
- 00674
- CV

_______________ ROBERT S. “BOB” BENNETT, APPELLANT

V. BROOCKS BAKER & LANGE, L.L.P. , Appellee

______________________________ On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2000
- 20780

______________________________

O RDER This is a statutory interlocutory appeal from an order signed on J uly 2, 2013

. An interlocutory appeal is an accelerated appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28.1(a). “ [I]n2

an accelerated appeal, absent a [motion to extend time], the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is strictly set at twenty days after the judgment is signed, with no

exce ptions. . . . ” In re K.A.F. , 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005); see T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 26.1(b), 26.3.
Bennett’s notice of appeal was due by July 21, 2013, yet he did not file it until August 1, 2013 , making it untimely

. See K.A.F. , 160 S.W.3d at 927. Bennett did not file a motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3. Although we construe a notice of appeal filed beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1(a)(1), but within the 15

- day period allowed under T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26 .3, to imply a motion for an extension of time, it is still necessary for an appellant to offer a reasonable explanation for his failure to timely file a notice of appeal. Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A reasonable explanation is “ any plausible statement of circumstances indicating that failure to file within the specified period was not deliberate or intentional, but was the result of inadvertence, mis take, or mischance. ” Hone v. Hanafin , 104 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2003) ( internal quotation omitted ).3

Unless within 15 days of the date of this order, appellant files an explanation reasonably explaining his failure to timely file his notice of appeal, we will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Coronado , 994 S.W.2d at 902; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a). This appeal is removed from the submission docket and, if dismissal is unwarranted, will be reset for submission at a later date. It is so ordered

.

Jane Bland Acting individually
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Jayson JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6844

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 24, 2017

Decided: November 7, 2017

Robert Jayson Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*301PER CURIAM:

Robert Jayson Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 jdemonstrate 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 Jones 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 this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In      connection with the Annual Report of GCA III Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”)      on Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael M.      Membrado, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|   |                                                                                                       |                                   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                       | /s/                Michael M. Membrado |
|   | Michael                M. MembradoPrincipal                Financial OfficerAugust                24, 2007 |

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 8/12/96 TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. BRANDON C. ALLEN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-3006 (D.C. No. 92-CR-40004) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **
Defendant Brandon C. Allen pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute approximately 180 grams of crack cocaine and was sentenced to 120 months. Defendant moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court denied.- 2 -

We have jurisdicition under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, 1 R. doc. 75.

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF **

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER **

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

| 1. | Such                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending August 31,                2007, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for                the year ending August 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                Global Transport Technologies, Inc. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                December 14, 2007                                                                            |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| */s/*Lord                Dr. Masaaki Ikawa                                                                        |
| Lord                Dr. Masaaki IkawaChief                Executive OfficerChief                Financial Officer |

----
#### Ronnie Lee HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RED LOBSTER operated by Darden Restaurants, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1570

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Ronnie Lee Howard, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*208PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Lee Howard appeals the district court’s order of April 14, 2017, dismissing without prejudice his employment discrimination action. After the district court dismissed Howard’s complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, Howard filed a notice of appeal to which he attached a copy of a right to sue notice issued prior to the filing of his federal action. The district court construed this filing as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and issued an order indicating its inclination to grant the motion. *See Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp.,*164 F.3d 887, 891-92 (4th Cir. 1999) (establishing procedure for handling Rule 60(b) motions filed while judgment is on appeal). This Court remanded the matter for the limited purpose of considering the merits of Howard’s motion for reconsideration. *See id.*

On remand, the district court vacated the April 14, 2017, order of dismissal. Because the order on appeal has been vacated, this appeal is now moot. *See Incumaa v. Ozmint,*507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth principles of appellate mootness); *Mellen v. Bunting,*327 F.3d 355, 363-64 (4th Cir. 2003) (“When a case has become moot after the entry of the district court’s judgment, an appellate court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. 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*
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 714

To require the Attorney General to study and report to Congress on means

of controlling the flow of violent, sexually explicit, harassing, offensive,

or otherwise unwanted material in interactive telecommunications systems.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 7 (legislative day, APRIL 5), 1995

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. KERREY, and Mr. KOHL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To require the Attorney General to study and report to

Congress on means of controlling the flow of violent,

sexually explicit, harassing, offensive, or otherwise unwanted material in interactive telecommunications systems.

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY ON MEANS OF RESTRICTING ACCESS TO

4 UNWANTED MATERIAL IN INTERACTIVE

5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.

6 (a) STUDY AND REPORT.—Not later than 150 days

7 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney Gen-
2

•S 714 IS

1 eral shall complete a study and submit to the Committee

2 on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the

3 Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report con4 taining—

5 (1) an evaluation of whether current criminal

6 laws governing the distribution of obscenity over

7 computer networks and the creation and distribution

8 of child pornography by means of computers are

9 fully enforceable in interactive media;

10 (2) an assessment of the Federal, State, and

11 local law enforcement resources that are currently

12 available to enforce those laws;

13 (3) an evaluation of the technical means avail14 able to—

15 (A) enable parents to exercise control over

16 the information that their children receive and

17 enable other users to exercise control over the

18 commercial and noncommercial information

19 that they receive over interactive telecommuni20 cations systems so that they may avoid violent,

21 sexually explicit, harassing, offensive, or other22 wise unwanted material; and

23 (B) promote the free flow of information

24 consistent, with Constitutional values, in inter25 active media; and
3

•S 714 IS

1 (4) recommendations to encourage the develop2 ment and deployment of technical means, including

3 hardware and software, to enable parents to exercise

4 control over the information that their children re5 ceive and enable other users to exercise control over

6 the information that they receive over interactive

7 telecommunications systems so that they may avoid

8 violent, sexually explicit, harassing, offensive, or oth9 erwise unwanted material.

10 (b) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the study and

11 preparing the report under subsection (a), the Attorney

12 General shall consult with the National Telecommuni13 cations and Information Administration of the Depart14 ment of Commerce.

Æ