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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7429

CARL EDWARD LYONS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT KORNEGAY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:11-hc-02165-F)

Submitted: January 7, 2014 Decided: February 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl Edward Lyons, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carl Edward Lyons seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When, as here,

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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Lyons 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
SERVED: July 8, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, LLC 

Docket No. FAA-2015- 1321 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR FAA TO RESPOND 

TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

(:; 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") tiled a Motion for Extension 

of Time to respond to Fisher Scientific Company, LLC's (hereinafter "Fisher'') 

"MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR INSUFFICIENCY AND FOR 

COMPLAINANT'S VIOLATION OF RULE 208" (hereinafter "Motion'''). Fisher has 

not yet responded. 

We do not anticipate reaching this case until on or after mid-December 2015. 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED the FAA file a response to 

Fisher's Motion on or before August 7, 2015. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

ONE COPY 

Jerry W. Cox, Respondent's Counsel 

Counsel for Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. 

and Fisher Scientific Co., LLC 

2729 Gallows Rd., Suite 401 

Vienna, VA 22180 

TEL: 703-757-5866 

Email: jcox@potomacstrategyassociates.com 

William Vines, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 3033 7 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1321 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALEX LARSON and FANE LOZMAN
, Appellant s ,

v.

PALM BEACH COUNTY
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3338

[ January 14, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Lisa S. Small , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2016

- CA

- 001706

- XXXX

- MB

.

Jonathan R. O’Boyle of The O’Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Deerfield Beach, for appellants.

Helene C. Hvizd, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Palm Beach County Attorney’s Office, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C.J., G ROSS and C ONNER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                          Section 906 CFO Certification

I, Kevin J. Brown, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Robbins &
Myers, Inc. ("the Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         1.       The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period
                  ended August 31, 2002 (the "Annual Report") fully complies
                  with the requirements of section 33(a) or 15(d) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78c(d)) and

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

Dated:  November 19, 2002

                                   /s/ Kevin J. Brown
                                   ---------------------------------------
                                   Kevin J. Brown
                                   Vice President and
                                   Chief Financial Officer




73
#### State v. Crawford

110,084

07/27/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 24, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00288

- CR

Johnny Moreno, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, J USTICES PEMBERTON AN D FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no er ror in the trial court’s

order : IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the order of the

trial court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to

pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be cert ified below for

observance.
EXHIBIT 31(b)CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER’S CERTIFICATIONI, Steven B. Alloy, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Stanley-Martin Communities, LLC:  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.                       Date: March 28, 2008 /s/ Steven B. Alloy   Steven B. Alloy   Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **1107**

HUI FANG XIAO ,
P etitioner ,

v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General , Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : July 28, 2010 Decided: August 1 1 , 2010

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

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New Jers ey , for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Branch Director, Matthew A. Connelly , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent

.

Unpublished opinions a re not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hui Fang Xiao , a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China , petition s for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum and
withholding of removal.
Xiao first challenges the determination that she
failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]he presented was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S.
478, 483

- 84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

c onclude that Xiao fails to demonstrate that the evidence
compels a contrary result. We therefore find that substantial
evidence supports the denial of relief.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Xiao’s request
for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum

— even though
the facts that must be proved are the same

— an applicant who is
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Xiao failed to3 establish that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the
higher standard for withholding of removal.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. **∗** We
dispense with or al argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

**∗** I t does not appear that Xiao requested relief under the Convention Against Torture before the immigration judge ; the Board nonetheless addressed Xiao’s contention on appeal that she was entitled to such relief. Although the Board’s decision to address this issue arguably excuse d Xiao’s failure to raise it before the immigration judge, cf. Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Security , 446 F.3d 289, 296

- 97 (6th Cir. 2006), we note that she failed to raise any specific claims regarding her eligibility for such relief before this c ourt. We therefore conclude that Xiao has waived appel late review of this claim. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3 d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
d+,~Eo s74p 2 

# n"$ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY % %Q* REGION IX

3

'( PROT~' 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
March 13, 2009 Patrick Cunningham, Acting Director Arizona Department ofEnvironmental

Quality 

### 1110 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Mr. Cunningham: On July 10, 2008, Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality submitted revisions to the Maricopa State Implementation Plan (SIP) which were subsequently revised by letter dated January 17, 2009. We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will review the complete revisions for actionpursuant to Clean Air Act section 11 O(k). APCDIAQMD Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County

Questions regarding our completeness review shouldbe directed to Cynthia 

### G.Allen at (415) 947-4 120. Sincerely, 

# Cur Rule # 300 3 10 3 10.01
314
316 Appendix C P-26

6 - ~irectbr, Air Division Rule Title Visible Emissions Fugitive Dust From Dust Generating Operations Fugitive Dust From Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust Open Outdoor Fires and Indoor Fireplaces at Commercial and Institutional Establishments Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Fugitive Dust Test Methods Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance

cc: Colleen McKaughan, EPA Jo Crumbaker, Maricopa County Nancy Wrona, ADEQ

Pn'nled on Recycled Paper
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                       LORAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIOS)
                                  (Unaudited)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                             SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                         ---------------------
                                                                           1995         1994
                                                                         --------     --------
<S>                                                                      <C>          <C>
Earnings:
  Income before taxes and equity in net loss of affiliates.............  $253,576     $199,333
  Add:
     Interest expense..................................................    71,977       51,924
     Amortization of debt expense......................................       214          728
     Amortization of capitalized interest..............................       497          574
     Interest component of rent expense................................    13,950       12,264
                                                                         --------     --------
  Earnings.............................................................  $340,214     $264,823
                                                                         ========     ========
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense.....................................................  $ 71,977     $ 51,924
  Amortization of debt expense.........................................       214          728
  Capitalized interest.................................................     4,142          110
  Interest component of rent expense...................................    13,950       12,264
                                                                         --------     --------
  Fixed charges........................................................  $ 90,283     $ 65,026
                                                                         ========     ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.....................................     3.77x        4.07x
                                                                         ========     ========
</TABLE>
 
                                       12
#### IN RE Leslie D. SILVERMAN, Respondent.

No. 17-BG-512

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

(FILED—December 21, 2017)

Bar Registration No. 448188, Board Docket No. 11-BD-090, BDN: 17-11

BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, Beckwith, Associate Judge, and Nebeker, Senior Judge.

*90ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the affidavit of Leslie D. Silverman, wherein she consents to disbarment from the bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 12, which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this court, and the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, and it appearing that respondent filed a compliant affidavit with the court *on*December *5,*2017, it is this 21st day of December, 2017,

ORDERED that the said Leslie D. Sil-verman is hereby disbarred by consent, effective forthwith. The effective date of respondent’s disbarment is nunc pro tunc to December 5, 2017.

The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the court or upon written consent of the respondent.

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving her notice of the provisions of Rulé XI, §§ 14 and 16, which set forth certain rights and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply therewith.
#### State v. Ford

107,237

10/30/13

Denied. ...

Unpublished
Exhibit 32(d)

Certification of the CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*

This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
accompanies the Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K (the Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 29, 2013 of Tim Hortons Inc. (the Issuer).

I, Cynthia J. Devine, the Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

(i) the Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

Dated: March 21, 2014



/s/ CYNTHIA J. DEVINEName: Cynthia J. Devine




|* | This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and
shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates this certification therein by reference.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### State v. Kendall

107,016

08/19/13

Denied. .

Unpublished
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 Micronetics
Wireless, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Richard S. Kalin,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies,
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 his knowledge:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 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.




Dated:  October 17, 2002     /s/Richard S. Kalin
                             -------------------------
                             Name:  Richard S. Kalin
                             Title: President and
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)



     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20121 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
FRANCISCO PEREZ ORDONES, also known as Francisco Perez-Ordones, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-142-3

- - - - - - - - - - December 15, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Francisco Perez Ordones (“Ordones”) appeals from his guiltyplea conviction on two counts of harboring illegal aliens and aiding and abetting. He argues that the district court clearly erred by failing to reduce his offense level as a minor or minimal participant, relying on an informant’s uncorroborated hearsay testimony, and failing to consider the scope of theNo. 99-20121 -2- larger conspiracy when assessing his role. We review the district court’s determination regarding a defendant’s role in the offense for clear error. See United States v. Zuniga , 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994). Ordones’s admissions during his rearraignment hearing regarding his participation in the offense partially corroborated the informant’s hearsay testimony and indicated that he was not entitled to a reduction as a minor or minimal participant. As Ordones failed to present any evidence to rebut the PSR’s finding that he was not a minor or minimal participant, the district court was free to adopt such findings without further inquiry.
See United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995). In addition, this court has held that the guidelines do “not require a reduction in the base offense level even though the defendant’s activity in a larger conspiracy may have been minor or minimal.” United States v. Atanda , 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.