alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7380

JAMES A. BUTLER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, CUMBERLAND; WARDEN SHEARIN; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-797-1-WMN) Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 12, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Matthew Wayne Mellady, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Annapolis Junction, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: James A. Butler filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking damages for the loss of his legal materials. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and although warned of the consequences, Butler failed to respond. The district court granted the motion, and Butler appeals. After a thorough review of the record, we find that Butler failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for trial. As the non-moving party, Butler could not rely upon the mere allegations of his complaint. Since he failed to respond with affidavits or other verified evidence, summary judgment was appropriately entered against him. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Butler’s motion to appoint counsel. 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
No. 11-5598.

#### Terrence Levonne Blount, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 915, 132 S. Ct. 332,

181 L. Ed. 2d 207,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5772.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
No. 11-6658.

#### Gerald R. Bigioni, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Office of Open Records.

565 U.S. 1081, 132 S. Ct. 819,

181 L. Ed. 2d 530,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8694.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied.
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 Quarterly  Report of Entech  Environmental  Technologies,
Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"),  I, Burr Northrop,  President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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.

Dated August 15, 2005                    /s/ Burr Northrop
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         Burr Northrop, President and Chief
                                         Executive Officer of Entech
                                         Environmental Technologies, Inc.
No. 11-6666.

#### Lee Farris Ezell, Jr., Petitioner v. Lea Ann Chrones, Warden.

565 U.S. 1081, 132 S. Ct. 819,

181 L. Ed. 2d 530,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8761.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 11-357.

#### Equity in Athletics, Inc., Petitioner v. Department of Education, et al.

565 U.S. 1111, 132 S. Ct. 1004,

181 L. Ed. 2d 734,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 274,

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 639 F.3d 91.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2203** 

ROBERT THOMAS PAYNE , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. MICHELLE K. LEE, Deputy Under Secretary for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 01077

- TSE

- MSN )

Submitted : April 29, 2016 Decided: May 4, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Thomas Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Thomas Payne seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order dismissing his discrimination action without prejudice. We dismiss the appeal for lack o f jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket on August 3 , 2015 . The notice of appeal was filed on October 6, 2015
. Because Payne failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04671**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04671\04671_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04671\04671_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04671\04671_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04671\04671_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04671\04671_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04671\04671_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04671\Certification Statement Plant ID 04671.pdf Plant certification statement x 04671\Follow-up\Southampton_Power_Station_04671.doc Follow-up material as part of the survey. x 04671\Follow-up\Southampton_Power_Station_04671.pdf Follow-up material as part of the survey.

x 04671\Supplemental Documents\04671_SH_A5-2 Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04671\Supplemental Documents\04671_SH_A5-3_Flow Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04671\Supplemental Documents\04671_SH_D3-1_POND DIAGRAM.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04671\04671_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04671\04671_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 04671\04671 (09374)_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
From: Harrington, J.G.

To: Ngo, Dan (FAA)

Subject: PINC Aerial - Exemption No. 13570

Date: Thursday, December 10, 2015 4:31:41 PM

Mr. Ngo –

We have discovered that the name of the applicant on Exemption No. 13570 is incorrect. Rather

than PINC Aerial, the name should be that of the parent company, PINC Solutions. All of the

other information in the exemption is correct. (To be clear, this is an error in the original filing,

not in the letter granting the exemption.)

What would you suggest as the best way to correct the name?

Thank you for your assistance.

J.G. Harrington

Counsel to PINC Solutions

J.G. Harrington

Cooley LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Suite 700

(enter from 12th and E Streets)

Washington, DC 20004-2400

Direct: +1 202 776-2818 • Mobile: +1 703 629-8725 • Fax: +1 202 842 7899

Email: jgharrington@cooley.com • www.cooley.com

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any

unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by

reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this

message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator.
# Box1_Table 3 Tdap type
No. 10-10726.

#### David L. Green, Petitioner v. Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy.

565 U.S. 1055, 132 S. Ct. 795,

181 L. Ed. 2d 477,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8465.

November 28, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Morgan Stanley Charter
Millburn L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter Davis,
President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general partner of
the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Partnership.









By:   /s/ Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President

Date:		August 14, 2006
The Nation’s Combat Logistics Support Agency Established 1961

WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

DLA Clothing & Textiles 

Steve Merch 

Director of Supplier Operations

November 17, 2021
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

Supply 

Chain 

Challenges

Services and Industry are Concerned about 

Current State and Challenges

Cascading Challenges

• Labor Shortages & Increased Turnover

• Lower Operating Efficiencies

• Increased Scrap and Re-Work

• Cost Increases

• Labor – Hiring & Retention

• Material/Components

• Shipping/Freight Cost

• Health Care

• Increased Lead Times

Mitigation Efforts

• Enhanced Communication with Industry

• Re-Examination of Accelerated Payments

• Exploration of Alternate Contract Pricing Methodologies

• Shorter Contract Length

• Early Re-Solicitation of Contracts

Stronger Industrial Base = Long Term Price 

Sustainability + Increased Supply Chain Flexibility
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

Best 

Value 

Trade 

Off

Total Number of Best Value 

Trade Off Awards: 63

• 27 High Tech/Low Price

• 2 Not High Tech/Low Price

• 6 High Tech/Not Low Price

• 8 only one offeror

• 20 multiple awards made under 

one solicitation

Total Number of Low Price 

Technically Acceptable: 17

• Of total, 7 were for PPE & 1 was 

Ecclesiastical
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

Other 

Than 

Best 

Value

Total Number of Other 

Awards: 24

• 11 IDPO

• 5 c-1 sole source

• 2 c-2 exigency

• 3 price only

• 3 COTS shelters

Total Number of 

Mandatory Awards: 47

• 28 SourceAmerica

• 16 NIB

• 3 FPI
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

Contract 

Obligation 

Update

• FY20 - $1.7B, FY21 $1.7B, FY22 

$1.6B*

• FY21 Breakout: Mandatory Sources 

25%, Small Business 61%, Large 

Business 14%

• Continuation of Three Month Delivery 

Orders

Contract Obligations

• Recruit Issue Items Constant

• Organization Clothing Individual 

Equipment Decrease

• Individual Forecast Letters Sent to 

Primes in October, Revisions in April

• DLA and Services Work Closely to 

Refine

Forecast 
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

FY20-22 

Contract 

Obligations

FY20 FY21 FY22

Dress Uniforms $101M $180M $162M

Outerwear $23M $24M $20M

Dress Shirts $21M $21M $15M

MCCUU & TFU $33M $44M $62M

Footwear $97M $121M $111M

Battledress $206M $309M $213M

Accessories $70M $90M $116M

Chemical $33M $34M $6M

ECWCS $216M $220M $226M

Gloves/Wet Weather $51M $44M $49M

Coveralls/Spec Purp $200M $192M $104M

Safety $52M $89M $63M

Indiv Equip $345M $166M $200M

Tents/Shelters $212M $184M $205M

Heraldics $28M $32M $20M
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 42052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20956]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 98N-0320]

Agency Emergency Processing Request Under OMB Review; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register of June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32102). 
The document announced an opportunity for public comment on a proposed 
collection of information that has been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget for emergency processing under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995. The notice published with an error. This 
document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Margaret R. Schlosburg, Office of 
Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 98-15484, appearing on page 
32102, in the Federal Register of Thursday, June 11, 1998, the 
following correction is made:
    1. On page 32103, in the second column, beginning in the first 
line, ``a nutrient claim or a health claim that is based on an 
authoritative statement of a scientific body of the Federal Government 
or the National Academy of Sciences. Under these sections of the act, a 
food producer that intends to use such a claim must submit a 
notification of its intention to use the claim 120 days before it 
begins marketing'' is corrected to read ``a nutrient content claim or a 
health claim that is based on an authoritative statement of certain 
scientific bodies of the Federal Government or of the National Academy 
of Sciences or any of its subdivisions. Under these sections of the 
act, a food producer may use such a claim in the labeling of an 
appropriate product 120 days after a complete notification of the claim 
is submitted to FDA''.

    Dated: July 29, 1998.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 98-20956 Filed 8-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
```
No. 11-7146.

#### William A. McDowell, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1085, 132 S. Ct. 830,

181 L. Ed. 2d 538,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8813.

December 5, 2011.

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

Same case below, 432 Fed. Appx. 263.
No. 11-7004.

#### Jesse Delgado, Petitioner v. Scott McEwen, Warden.

565 U.S. 1120, 132 S. Ct. 1018,

181 L. Ed. 2d 752,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 356.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 11-6339.

#### In re Jose M. Rocha, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 940, 132 S. Ct. 443,

181 L. Ed. 2d 289,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7251.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $7.82 CWT 0.965 $7.5463

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.5355 LB 3.5 $8.8743

Class I Price $16.4206

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $7.05 CWT 0.965 $6.8033

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.5599 LB 3.5 $8.9597

Class I Price $15.7629

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.6577

(4) Price change per gallon $0.0565

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0283

Price change per quart $0.0141

Price change per pint $0.0071

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0051

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0042

Price change per half pint $0.0035

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.06

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.03

Price adjustment per quart $0.01

Price adjustment per pint $0.01

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.01

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: May 5, 2019
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Charley Changmin Yoon, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports
on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust
2017-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange
Act periodic reports;



4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer
has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and



5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.



In giving the certifications above, I have
reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Citibank, N.A.



Date: March 13, 2020



| | By: | /s/ Charley Changmin Yoon                                    
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Name: Charley Changmin Yoon                                  
| |     | Title:  President and Secretary                              
| |     | (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
No. 11-7037.

#### Andre L. Marshall, Petitioner v. Debbie Morton, et al.

565 U.S. 1121, 132 S. Ct. 1020,

181 L. Ed. 2d 753,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 204.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 421 Fed. Appx. 832.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ROBERT F. KERR, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-2370 T. A. MCMULLEN CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-143) Submitted: May 8, 2001 Decided: May 30, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Robert L. Duecaster, Manassas, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul V.Waters, Conrad Christopher Ledoux, SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Robert F. Kerr and T.A. McMullen Consultants, Inc.[TAMCI] entered into an agreement terminating an employment contract under which Kerr, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Manager for TAMCI, released all claims except those for payments due from open invoices. This appeal follows the award by the district court of"direct fees" and"consultant commissions" under the terms of the employment contract. We affirm. TAMCI alleges that a misreading of a sentence in the dissolution agreement by the district court led to a misinterpretation of the termsof that agreement. This court reviews the district court's factual findings for clear error and legal principles of contract interpretation de novo. Hendricks v. Central Reserve Life Ins. Co. , 39 F.3d 507, 512(4th Cir. 1994). The parties agree that the dissolution agreement preserved Kerr's right to seek payment for "open Invoices." Because the dissolution agreement did not define the "open Invoices" for which Kerr's right to payment was preserved, the court concluded that the dissolution agreement incorporated by reference the compensationstructure set forth in the employment contract. The employment contract addressed the calculation of Kerr's compensation for fees andcommissions and was never modified by agreement of the parties during the life of that contract. We conclude that the district court reasonably interpreted the dissolution agreement in conjunction with theearlier employment contract in determining the amount of compensation due Kerr for "open Invoices." First American Bank of Virginia v. J.S.C. Concrete Const., Inc. , 259 Va. 60, 66, 523 S.E.2d 496, 500 (2000) (citing Doswell Ltd. Partnership v. Electric and Power Co.
, 251 Va. 215, 222, 468 S.E.2d 84,88 (1996)).The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed. 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
2