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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1710

PATRICIA F. APPLEGATE, R.N.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN MICHAEL FRAY, Phd.; ROBERT S. BOYD,

Reverend; THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-95-814)

Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 9, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia F. Applegate, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Morris Holleran,

MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia; Roger

Louis Williams, WILLIAMS, BUTLER & PIERCE, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting

Defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing her action,

and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we grant in forma pauperis status and affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Applegate v. Fray, No. CA95-814 (E.D. Va. Apr. 19 & May 17, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Interest of David L., a Juvenile under the Age of 

Seventeen, Appellant. 

Appellate Case No. 2011-198473 

Appeal from Pickens County 

Alvin D. Johnson, Family Court Judge
 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-013 

Heard April 16, 2013 – Filed April 24, 2013 

AFFIRMED 

Ernest C. Grose, Jr., of Grose Law Firm, of Greenwood, 

and Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of 

Columbia, for Appellant. 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant 

Attorney General J. Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, 

for Respondent. 

 PER CURIAM: David L. pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct with a 

minor in the first degree and was adjudicated guilty by the family court. The court 

sentenced him to a determinate commitment in the Department of Juvenile Justice 

until his twenty-first birthday and also required that he register as a sex offender as 

required by Section 23-3-430 of the South Carolina Code (2007). David appeals 
 

the registration requirement arguing it violates his rights to due process and equal 

protection and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm pursuant to 

Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. Due Process and Equal Protection: Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 

(1973) ("When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court 

that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not 

thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of 

constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea."); 

State v. Rice, 401 S.C. 330, 330, 737 S.E.2d 485, 485 (2013) ("[A] guilty 

plea constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and claims of 

violations of constitutional rights."). 

2. Cruel and Unusual Punishment: In re Ronnie A., 355 S.C. 407, 409, 585 

S.E.2d 311, 312 (2003) (noting the Court has held that sex offender 

registration, regardless of the length of time, is non-punitive). State v. Walls, 

348 S.C. 26, 31, 558 S.E.2d 524, 526 (2002) ("[T]he [South Carolina Sex 

Offender Registry] Act is not so punitive in purpose or effect as to constitute 

a criminal penalty."). 

AFFIRMED. 

TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justice James 

E. Moore, concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 27, 2016

NO. 03-15-00639-CV

C. Y., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 2, 2015. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           FEB-1-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-3-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                FEB-1-1998
<CASH>                                           2,555
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    103,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,289
<PP&E>                                          70,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                (30,627)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 158,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,303
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   158,114
<SALES>                                        323,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               323,254
<CGS>                                          212,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  212,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,525
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,281
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,790
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,491
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,491
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
        

        

</TABLE>
##### 



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






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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 R.H. Donnelley Inc. as of the dates and
    for the periods expressed in the Report.

|                                                                                     |  |                                                                                 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ David C. SwansonDavid
    C. Swanson
    Chief Executive Officer
    May 9, 2005 |  | /s/ Steven M. Blondy
Steven M. BlondySVP and Chief Financial OfficerMay 9, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35918-35919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17429]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-406-000]


CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

June 25, 1998.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on Wednesday, July 1, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
N.E.,

[[Page 35919]]

Washington, DC, 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible 
settlement of the above-reference docket.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined in 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, please contact William J. Collins at 
(202) 208-0248.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17429 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-6735.

#### Carlos Lopez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1019, 131 S. Ct. 544,

178 L. Ed. 2d 399,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8412.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 10-6663.

#### Xavier A. Parks, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1069, 131 S. Ct. 656,

178 L. Ed. 2d 491,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9411.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 39 So. 3d 1269.
# C_2014388EN.01001301.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO)

(Case T-11/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark MEGO - Relative ground for refusal - Earlier opposition proceedings - No application of the principle of res judicata))

2014/C 388/15

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tegmotall International AG (Lengwil, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann and E. Schaper, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Irega AG (Zuchwil, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2012 (Case R 1522/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Tegometall International AG and Irega AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2012 (Case R 1522/2011-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2012 (Case R 1522/2011-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tegometall International AG before the General Court as well as the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tegometall International AG before the General Court as well as the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6347.

#### Christopher A. Odom, Petitioner v. Mt. Pleasant Police Department Insurance Policy Holder, et al.

562 U.S. 1038, 131 S. Ct. 600,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8994.

178 L. Ed. 2d 430,

November 15, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied, and petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 210.
EXHIBIT 32.1


        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 Annual Report of DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), We, Craig T Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of The
Company and Laura Lunardo, Chief Financial 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:

        (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/ Craig T Dunham
                              -------------------
                              Craig T Dunham
                              President and Chief Executive
                              Officer


                                /s/ Laura Lunardo
                              -------------------
                              Laura Lunardo
                              Chief Financial Officer

December 12, 2006
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**




The
      undersigned officer of Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (the “Company”)
      hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company’s quarterly report on
      Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This
      certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
      Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated
      under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the
      Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this
      certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of
      that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
      into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the
      extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.




Date: November 7, 2008
            /s/ Mark T. FrostName: Mark T. FrostTitle: Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Final Notes July 9, 2010

Steam Study Data Review Notes 

Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Water and Wastes 

EPA Method 200.7 (1994)

(Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry)

1. * If reported, note the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of the samples after 

dilution. If diluted appropriately, samples should have a TDS concentration of 0.15 -

0.2% (200.7/1.3/4.2).

2. For the determination of dissolved elements, samples should be filtered through a 0.45 

um pore membrane filter soon after collection. The filtrate should be acidified at the 

laboratory with 1 to 1 nitric acid to a pH less than 2 within two weeks of collection

(200.7/8.2).

3. Prior to the analysis of dissolved elements, samples should be acidified with nitric acid 

and if a precipitate forms samples should be digested using the procedure specified in 

Section 11.2 (200.7/11.1.1). If reported, indicate the amount of nitric acid used in the 

digestion and list any deviations noted in the lab’s digestion procedures. 

4. For the determination of total or total recoverable elements, samples should be acidified 

with 1 to 1 nitric acid to a pH less than 2 within two weeks of collection (200.7/8.3).

After acidification, the sample should be mixed and allowed to sit for 16 hours, and then 

confirmed to have a pH less than 2. If the pH was greater than or equal to 2 the sample 

should be acidified, mixed, held for 16 hours, and tested again (200.7/8.3).

5. Prior to the analysis of total or total recoverable elements, a well mixed volume of the 

sample should be digested with nitric acid and hydrochloric acid and if necessary filtered

prior to analysis (200.7/11.2). *For FGD influent samples that contain greater than 1% 

suspended solids, the laboratory should separate the solid and liquid portions of the 

sample and analyze each portion separately. If reported, indicate the amount of nitric and 

hydrochloric acids used in digestion and any deviations noted in the lab’s digestion 

procedures.

6. A rinse blank should be used to flush the system between all solution changes. If 

reported, indicate how many rinse blanks were run and note any contamination reported.

7. For aqueous samples, a field blank should be prepared and analyzed at each sample point 

during one of the four days of sample collection. If the analyte concentration was greater 

than the MDL, indicate the concentration. (200.7/8.5)

8. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte concentration 

in the laboratory reagent blank, the result should be reported as a nondetect. List all 

affected samples.

9. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times 

the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, the result should reported as an 

estimated value. List all affected samples.
No. 10-650.

#### Joseph A. Mayercheck, Petitioner v. Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, et al.

562 U.S. 1140, 131 S. Ct. 945,

178 L. Ed. 2d 756,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 167.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 395 Fed. Appx. 839.
No. 10-6233.

#### Malcolm T. Riley, Petitioner v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 527,

178 L. Ed. 2d 388,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8592,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 10-6357.

#### James Walker, Petitioner v. George H. Sheldon, Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families.

562 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 530,

178 L. Ed. 2d 390,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8473.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 611 F.3d 720.
No. 10-157.

#### Sprint Spectrum, L.P., dba Sprint PCS, Petitioner v. Christopher W. Hesse, et al.

562 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 506,

178 L. Ed. 2d 371,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8530.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 598 F.3d 581.
No. 10-700.

#### Creative Compounds, LLC, Petitioner v. Sabinsa Corporation.

562 U.S. 1140, 131 S. Ct. 960,

178 L. Ed. 2d 757,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 143.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 609 F.3d 175.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49120-49121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 11

[BIA-2013-0001; 134/A0J351010.999900/AAKL008000]
RIN 1076-AF16

Courts of Indian Offenses

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

[[Page 49121]]

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is confirming the interim 
final rule published and effective on March 3, 2013, addressing the 
addition of two Indian tribes to the list of tribes with Courts of 
Indian Offenses (also known as CFR Courts), and deletion of five tribes 
from those under the jurisdiction of CFR Courts. The March 3, 2013, 
publication stated that the BIA would review comments on the interim 
final rule and either confirm the rule or initiate a proposed 
rulemaking. BIA did not receive any comments, and therefore confirms 
the rule without change.

DATES: Effective August 13, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Appel, Acting Director, 
Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, (202) 273-4680; 
elizabeth.appel@bia.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule revises a section of 25 CFR part 
11 to add the following Indian tribes to the list of tribes with 
established Courts of Indian Offenses (also known as CFR Courts): The 
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians. 
Adding these tribes will allow for the administration of justice until 
the added tribes put into effect a law-and-order code that establishes 
a court system that meets regulatory requirements or until the tribe 
adopts a legal code and establishes a judicial system in accordance 
with its constitution and bylaws or other governing documents.
    The rule also revises a section of 25 CFR 11.100(c) to remove five 
tribes from the list of those with established CFR Courts. The tribes 
removed from the list are the Seminole Nation, the Miami Tribe, the 
Wyandotte Tribe, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and the Quapaw Tribe 
of Indians.
    On March 3, 2013, we published an interim final rule with a request 
for comment at 78 FR 14017. We stated in the interim final rule that we 
would review any comments received and, by a future publication, 
address any comments received and either confirm the interim final rule 
with or without change or initiate a proposed rulemaking. We received 
no comments on the interim final rule.
    Therefore, the interim rule published March 3, 2013, at 78 FR 
14017, is confirmed as final without change.

    Dated: August 1, 2013.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-19596 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
```