alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rayshawn DONALDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6808

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: November 7, 2017

Rayshawn Donaldson, Appellant Pro Se. JoAnna Gibson McFadden, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attor*300neys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rayshawn Donaldson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 ap-pealability 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 Donaldson 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 the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMOQUEST
CORP.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                         159,553
<SECURITIES>                                     7,524
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,454
<INVENTORY>                                     61,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               315,872
<PP&E>                                          69,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 532,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,333
<BONDS>                                        104,831
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           485
<OTHER-SE>                                     292,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   532,419
<SALES>                                        227,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               227,146
<CGS>                                          120,529
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  120,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    56
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,495
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,257
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Jane DERN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Safeco Insurance Company of America, Defendant-Appellee, v. Sasscer, Clagett & Bucher, Party-in-Interest.

No. 17-1959

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

Jane Dern, Appellant Pro Se. Kayleigh Toth Keilty, Patricia McHugh Lambert, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jane Dern seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion to reopen her case. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment *175or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 22, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on August 16, 2017. Because Dern failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, 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*
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL AND EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Compass Acquisition Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Rozelle, President 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, to the best of my knowledge that:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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: October 14, 2008



|                                                                     |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Joseph Rozelle                                                   |  | 
|Joseph Rozelle
President
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer) |  | 





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                           STERLING COMMERCE, INC. 
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE INFORMATION)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              THREE MONTHS         SIX MONTHS
                                              ENDED MARCH          ENDED MARCH 
                                                31, 1997             31, 1997
                                              ------------         -----------
<S>                                           <C>                  <C>
Primary:
Average shares outstanding..............         80,111              77,527
Net effect of dilutive stock                               
 options based on the treasury stock        
 method using average market price......          2,623               2,245
                                                -------             -------
Total...................................         82,734              79,772
                                                =======             =======
Net income..............................        $18,817             $34,877
                                                =======             =======
Per share amount........................        $  0.23             $  0.44
                                                =======             =======
Fully diluted:                                             
Average shares outstanding..............         80,111              77,527
Net effect of dilutive stock                               
 options based on the treasury stock                                 
 method using the higher of average or                     
 quarter-end market price...............          2,623               2,245
                                                -------             -------
Total...................................         82,734              79,772
                                                =======             =======
Net income..............................        $18,817             $34,877
                                                =======             =======
Per share amount........................        $  0.23             $  0.44
                                                =======             =======
</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Catherine Denise RANDOLPH, Appellant. In re: Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant.

No. 17-1855, No. 17-2066

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

*243Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district court’s decisions returning her complaints because they were not in compliance with the prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals. 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*
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-74-2021]

On November 12, 2021, the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of FTZ 122, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Gulf Coast Growth Ventures LLC, within Subzone 122W, in San Patricio County, Texas.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 64899, November 19, 2021). On March 14,                           ( print page 15366)                        2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: March 14, 2022.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-05690 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-1088 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-005-AD

Helicopter Model: Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 and R44 II Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 165 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended prevent the failure of the emergency floats to inflate 

during an emergency landing.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $850 to $955

Labor per Helicopter

(2.5 x $85/work-hour for 

the replacement)

$213

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $1,063 to $1,168

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Venessa Stiger
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01126]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts

Arts Advisory Panel Meetings

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the 
Arts and Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that two 
meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts 
will be held by teleconference from the National Endowment for the 
Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506 as 
follows (all meetings are Eastern time and ending times are 
approximate):
    State & Regional (review of National Services Agreement): This 
meeting will be open.
    Dates: February 12, 2015 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    State & Regional (review of Regional Arts Organization Partnership 
Agreements): This meeting will be open.
    Dates: February 12, 2015 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    State & Regional (review of Regional Arts Organization Partnership 
Agreements): This meeting will be open.
    Dates: February 18, 2015 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information with reference to 
these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Andi Mathis, Partnership 
Division National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506; 
mathisa@arts.gov, or call 202/682-5430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The closed portions of meetings are for the 
purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on 
financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in 
confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the 
Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the 
public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United 
States Code.

    Dated: January 20, 2015.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2015-01126 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   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 Quarterly Report of FFD Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert R. Gerber, the Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
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 to 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/Robert R. Gerber
------------------------------------------
Robert R. Gerber
Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RONALD ALEX STEVENSON, Petitioner, vs. THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CARSON CITY; AND THE HONORABLE JAMES E. WILSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents. No. 69294 

# FILE JAN 1 4 2016

TRACE K. UNDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that the district court arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis so as to warrant writ relief. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that petitioner bears the burden to

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 147- 0 1 2 SIdemonstrate that writ relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist.

Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

fret Atlen

, J. Hardesty

Saitta

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge Ronald Alex Stevenson Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk

'Petitioner's December 3, 2015, motion for leave to file pro se documents is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A atep
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 27

JOINT RESOLUTION

To grant the consent of the Congress to certain additional

powers conferred upon the Bi-State Development Agency

by the States of Missouri and Illinois.

Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between

Missouri and Illinois creating the Bi-State Development

Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan District provided

that no power shall be exercised by the Bi-State Agency

under the provisions of article III of such compact until

such power has been conferred upon the Bi-State Agency

by the legislatures of the States to the compact and approved by an Act of Congress; and

Whereas such States have now enacted certain legislation in

order to confer certain additional powers on such BiState Development Agency: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That—

4 (a) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to

5 the additional powers conferred on the Bi-State Develop6 ment Agency by Senate Bill 114, Laws of Missouri 1993
2

SJ 27 ES

1 and Public Act 88–611 (Senate Bill 1670), Laws of Illi2 nois 1994.

3 (b) The powers conferred by the Acts consented to

4 in subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 1995.

5 SEC. 2. The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950

6 (64 Stat. 568) shall apply to the additional powers ap7 proved under this joint resolution to the same extent as

8 if such additional powers were conferred under the provi9 sions of the compact consented to in such Act.

10 SEC. 3. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint

11 resolution is expressly reserved.

12 SEC. 4. The right is hereby reserved to the Congress

13 to require the disclosure and furnishings of such informa14 tion or data by the Bi-State Development Agency as is

15 deemed appropriate by the Congress.

Passed the Senate July 21 (legislative day, July 10),

1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 27

JOINT RESOLUTION

To grant the consent of the Congress to certain adIllinois. velopment Agency by the States of Missouri and ditional powers conferred upon the Bi-State De-
Exhibit 10.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-188107) of Gazit Globe Ltd. and in the related Prospectus of our
reports dated March 25, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Gazit Globe Ltd. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Gazit Globe Ltd. and subsidiaries included
in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2013.



|                 |  |  |  |  |  |                                 
|---------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------
|                 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Kost Forer Gabby & Kasierer 
|Tel-Aviv, Israel |  |  |  |  |  | KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER    
|April 16, 2014   |  |  |  |  |  | A Member of Ernst & Young Global
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Yearly Report On Form 10-KSB of Cab-Tive Advertising, Inc. for the Year Ended December 31, 2006, I, Brian Blaszczak, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cab-Tive Advertising, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



1.   Such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, 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 Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cab-Tive Advertising, Inc.



Dated:  April 11, 2007



CAB-TIVE ADVERTISING, INC.





By: /s/ Brian Blaszczak

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer













#