alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7036

BRENT MARLOWE HARRIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EARL D. BESHEARS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-94-

1455-L)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brent Marlowe Harris, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant

that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to

the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2015-02

(Certification Test Fixtures)

VVSG 1.1 Volume 2: 1.8.2.3 Certification Test Fixtures

Date: 

July 23, 2015

Question: 

Can VSTLs use machine marked ballots, printed by the manufacturer, for 

Certification testing?

Section of Guidelines:

VVSG 1.1 V2: 1.8.2.3

1.8.2.3 Certification Test Fixtures

The VSTL shall not use simulation devices or software that bypass portions 

of the voting system that would be exercised in an actual election, with the 

following exceptions:

a. The VSTL may bypass the user interface of an interactive device in the 

case of environmental tests that would require subjecting test “voters” to 

unsafe or unhealthy conditions, or that would be invalidated by the presence 

of a test “voter.”

b. The VSTL may bypass the user interface of an interactive device in 

capacity tests to verify that the system and its constituent components are 

able to operate correctly at the maximum limits specified in the 

implementation statement; for example, maximum number of ballots that 

can be counted, maximum possible vote total (counter capacity), or 

maximum number of ballot styles.
The VSTL may use test fixtures or ancillary devices to facilitate testing as 

long as they closely and validly simulate actual election use of the system. If 

a tabulator is specified to count paper ballots that are manually marked with 

a specific writing utensil, it is not valid to substitute ballots that were 

mechanically marked by a printer. However, ballots that were marked 

according to manufacturer instructions can sometimes be recycled through a 

tabulator without invalidating the test.

Discussion: 

EAC already requires VSTLs to use a percentage of hand marked ballots for 

accuracy tests and will continue to do so to make sure hand marked and 

machine marked are used in testing.

As long as a manufacturer identifies that the voting system can read both 

hand marked and machine marked ballots, using machine marked ballots in 

testing is acceptable. Manufacturers currently provide machine marked

ballots to VSTLs for test campaigns.

Conclusion: 

EAC agrees that machine marked ballots provided by the manufacturer 

qualify as ballots marked according to manufacturer instructions. The ballots 

meet this requirement as long as the manufacturer states that the voting 

system can read machine marked ballots in the system description or 

overview submitted to the EAC. 

Applicability:

Immediate for all voting system applications submitted to VVSG 1.1.
No. 11-10952.

#### Sidener *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# table36
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 10 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 10

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 3, 2019.
    Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, the hour of daily meeting of the 
House shall be 2 p.m. on Mondays; noon on Tuesdays (or 2 p.m. if no legislative 
business was conducted on the preceding Monday); noon on Wednesdays and 
Thursdays; and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1




                             READ-RITE CORPORATION
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Three Months Ended        Six Months Ended
                                          ----------------------    ----------------------
                                          March 31,    March 31,    March 31,    March 31,
                                             1997         1996         1997         1996
                                          ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------

<S>                                        <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>    
Net income                                 $23,555      $ 1,287      $29,342      $43,858
                                           =======      =======      =======      =======
Weighted average common shares
   outstanding                              47,203       46,538       47,089       46,827
Common equivalent shares issuable
   under dilutive stock options after
   applying treasury stock method,
   net of tax benefits                       1,613          923        1,368        1,198
                                           -------      -------      -------      -------
Common and common equivalent
   shares used in computing net
   income per share                         48,816       47,461       48,457       48,025
                                           =======      =======      =======      =======

Net income per share                       $  0.48      $  0.03      $  0.61      $  0.91
                                           =======      =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.4

                            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 Resource America, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven
J. Kessler, 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:

(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.


                                                   /s/ Steven J. Kessler
                                                   -------------------------
                                                   Steven J. Kessler
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   October 31, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Resource America, Inc. and will be retained by Resource America,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 12-5267.

#### Franklin *v.*U. S. Bank N. A.

Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002/SEC RULE
                                    13a-14(b)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Immune Response Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), which this written statement
accompanies, I, Michael K. Green, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: August 15, 2005                        /s/ Michael K. Green
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Michael K. Green
                                              Vice President, Finance and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PIEDMONT MINING COMPANY, INC.
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          33,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,000
<PP&E>                                         188,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,977,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,591,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,015,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,977,000
<SALES>                                         28,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (5,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (102,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (102,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (102,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-10958.

#### Hunt *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE NINE
MONTHS  ENDED  9-30-97 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND NOTES THERETO  CONTAINED IN THE  COMPANY'S  QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                   U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                          6,395,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,621,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      518,000
<INVENTORY>                                        39,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12,843,000
<PP&E>                                          3,986,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,631,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,490,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,897,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              65,000
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,430,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,490,000
<SALES>                                         9,344,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                9,344,000
<CGS>                                           1,049,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14,663,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  459,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (5,909,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      198,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (6,108,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (6,108,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
                                



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

August 13, 2010

No. 09-2427

CHAFIK SEBKI,

 Petitioner

 

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent

 

(B.I.A.-1: A098-496-669)

Present: VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judge

Motion filed by Petitioner to Place Record under Seal and to Remove Publicly-Available

Electronic Posting of Related Orders and Opinions.

 /s/ Taleah Grimmage 

Case Manager (267)299-4251

 O R D E R 

The foregoing motion of Petitioner to place record under seal and to remove publicly-available

electronic posting of related orders and opinions is granted.

By the Court,

 /s/ Franklin S. Van Antwerpen 

Circuit Judge

Dated: August 17, 2010

trg/cc: Elissa C. Steglich, Esq.

Theodore C. Hirt, Esq.

Case: 09-2427 Document: 003110254656 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2010
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 13393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7107]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Order Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United 
States v. LTV Steel Company, Civil Action No. 97C-623, was been lodged 
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
Illinois on February 2, 1997.
    The Consent Decree resolves claims alleged against defendant, LTV 
Steel Company (``LTV''), under the Clean Air Act (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 7401 et seq. in connection with emissions from its coke batteries. 
The proposed Consent Decree provides for the payment by LTV of a civil 
penalty of $1,250,000, for its alleged failure to comply with its 
construction permit issued pursuant to the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) program and of applicable National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 C.F.R. 
Secs. 63.304(b)(1)(iii) and 63.304(b)(1)(iv). LTV has also agreed to 
install a system of ``jumper pipes'' which will vent the emissions from 
one coke battery into the next battery in series, where the emissions 
will be used as fuel for combustion.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the 
proposed consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044, and 
should refer to United States v. LTV Steel Company, D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-
1945.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 S. 
Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604, at the Office of Regional 
Counsel, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, 200 
West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606, and at the Consent Decree 
Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 
624-0892. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may also be obtained in 
person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library. In requesting a 
copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $7.00 (25 cents per page 
reproduction costs) payable to the ``Consent Decree Library.''
Joel Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-7107 Filed 3-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mickelle Deangelo BULLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-13466 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 13, 2018)

Germaine Seider, U.S. Attorney Service — Middle District of Florida, U.S. At*588torney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nicole Mouakar, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, James T. Skuthan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and . FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jenny L. Devine, appointed counsel for Mickelle Bullock in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bullock’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The 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.

** Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 5/22/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SHARON STEPHENS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MARVIN T. RUNYON, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-6154 (D.C. No. CIV-94-765-T) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, JONES, ** and TACHA, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument.2

SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Sharon Stephens is a Postal Service employee. Based on the conduct of another Postal Service employee, Vic Clark, plaintiff asserted claims against defendant Postmaster General for sexual discrimination based on hostile work environment, and for age discrimination. The district court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s sexual discrimination claim on February 24, 1995, and later dismissed plaintiff’s age discrimination claim. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendant on her sexual discrimination claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court held that plaintiff’s only timely Equal Employment Opportunity complaint related to an incident with Clark on January 5, 1993, but that plaintiff did not allege sexual harassment in that encounter. The district court also held that previous incidents of alleged sexual harassment by Clark were too infrequent and distant in time to form a continuing pattern of sexual discrimination. The district court therefore concluded that plaintiff’s claim of sexual discrimination based on hostile work environment could not survive summary judgment. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the district court erred by holding: (1) that she could not prevail as a matter of law on her claim of sexual harassment based on hostile work3

environment, and (2) that her claim of prior sexual harassment was not timely under the continuing violation doctrine. The district court carefully and thoroughly analyzed the issues in light of the record. We have also carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the district court’s February 24, 1995 order. The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

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

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

September 29, 2016

a0922 

# Order

Clerk September 29, 2016

152802 & (18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152802

COA: 328557

Genesee CC: 11

- 028915

- FC

GARY DUANE FRISBY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 4, 2015

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Genesee County

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal, as well as the motion

to add an issue, within 28 days after the date of this order.

The application for leave to appeal and the motion to add issue remain pending.