alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1456

FRANCIS M. RUSSELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-99-20-2) Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 12, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Vernon M. Williams, S. Scott Baker, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Lori Karimoto, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISSTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Francis M. Russell appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner in this action challenging the denial of Russell’s application for supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the report of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Specifically, we find that the ALJ was under no obligation to inquire into whether Russell was disabled under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart B, App. 1, § 12.05(C) (2000). We further find that the ALJ appropriately applied the medical-vocational guidelines in finding that Russell was not disabled. We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Russell v. Apfel , No. CA-99- 20-2 (W.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2000). 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. 09-7698.

#### Mark Fowler, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1094, 130 S. Ct. 2371,

176 L. Ed. 2d 770,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3616.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 342 Fed. Appx. 520.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          55,557
<SECURITIES>                                    43,964
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,037
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               456,865
<PP&E>                                          13,780
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,219
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 557,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          514,325
<BONDS>                                         12,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,750
<COMMON>                                        18,728
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,107<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   557,910
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,259
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,164
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,590
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,505
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,049
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,456
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,857
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,313
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES UNREALIZED LOSS ON SECURITIES AFS OF 140.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Noble Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James C. Day, Chairman 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 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 Company.

May 10, 2004                               /s/  JAMES C. DAY
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           James C. Day
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                           of Noble Corporation
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Petition for Exemption Under 14 CFR § 11.81

to Allow Commercial Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Petitioner:

0*50HGLDLLC

0LFKDHO5DSRSRUW3ULQFLSDO

%XWWHUFXS5RDG

0DFXQJLH3$

Tel. 

Email: FRQWDFWPJUPHGLD#\DKRRFRP

Sections 0*50HGLD, LLC LVseeking relief:

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, PL 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333, 14 

CFR Part 21, subpart H, 14 CFR Part 61.113(a) and (b), 14 CFT Part 91: 91.103(b)(2), 

91.105, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 1.405, 91.407, 91.409, 91.417 

0*50HGLD, LLC is seeking exemption in order to operate small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) for commercial purposes and to comply with FAA 

regulations.

Commercial purposes include: aerial videography and photography services, agriculture 

surveying, search and rescue assistance, real estate, cinematography, corporate videos, 

sporting events, and special events.

The use of sUAS technology for these commercial purposes positively effect the public 

interest. Human life is not required on board sUAS reducing risk of manned aircraft 

accidents, environment emissions are reduced, and new markets are emerging increasing 

local economies.

sUAS aircraft used in these commercial operations will be the DJI Inspire 1. The DJI 

Inspire 1 weighs less than 55 pounds, has GPS abilities, and is a common aircraft used in 

similar exempt businesses.
The aircraft will be registered in accordance with Section 44711 and Part 47 and Part 45, 

Subpart C.

0*50HGLD, LLC will require maintenance and inspections to be 

performed based on the requirements of the manufacturer to maintain air worthiness. All 

repair and maintenance will be performed by qualified personnel. 

0*50HGLD, LLC wish to be good stewards of this emerging technology 

and will require sUAS training and test flights of all Pilots in Command (PIC) before any 

commercial flight, and will conduct all flights in accordance with the FAA standards and 

regulations set forth by the exemption if granted.

0*50HGLD, LLC respectfully requests that the FAA grant its exemption 

within it’s authority pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act, 85 P.L. 726 (1958).

Respectfully,

Michael Rapoport 

MGR Media, LLC

7610 Buttercup Rd 

Macungie, PA 18062 

Submitted 'HFHPEHU, 2015
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Devonte MAJOR, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 105788

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: October 2, 2018

Garrick F. D. Aplin, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Maleaner R. Harvey, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Devonte Major (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of first-degree robbery in violation of Section 569.020 RSMo. (2000) and sentencing him to a term of 12 years of imprisonment to be served concurrently with Appellant's sentences on unrelated offenses. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 30.25(b).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10880-10881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee (LTFAC) will 
hold a meeting on March 23, 2009 on the north shore of Lake Tahoe. This 
Committee, established by the Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 
1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to provide advice to the Secretary on 
implementing the terms of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the 
Lake Tahoe Region and other matters raised by the Secretary.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 23, 2009 beginning at 1 p.m. and 
ending at 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held on the north shore of Lake Tahoe. A 
final location can be confirmed at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5lltbmullocal/ltfac.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arla Hains, Lake Tahoe Basin 
Management Unit (LTBMU), Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake 
Tahoe, CA 96150, (530) 543-2773.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Items to be covered on the agenda include:
    <bullet> The Tahoe Working Group (TWG) will present their Lake 
Tahoe Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) Round 10 
preliminary recommendation for capital projects and science themes. The 
LTFAC will discuss and with possible consensus, put

[[Page 10881]]

forward a preliminary recommendation for public comment.
    <bullet> Public Comment.
    Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the 
open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written 
statements for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer 
any written comments attention Arla Hains, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 
Unit at the contact address stated above.
    If you have questions concerning special needs for this public 
meeting, or to request sign language interpretation, contact Linda Lind 
at (530)543-2787 or TTY (530)543-0956, or via e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#79353510171d391f0a571f1c1d570c0a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="662a2a0f080226001548000302481315">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This Federal Register notice will be published less than 15 
calendar days prior to the meeting. There will be timely meeting 
notification through the LTBMU Web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmullocal/ltfac).

    Dated: March 5, 2009.
Eli Ilano,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.
 [FR Doc. E9-5142 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Eddie BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106058

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: November 20, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Susan A. DeGeorge, Assistant Public Defender, 1010 Market Street, Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*492*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Brown appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
<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
Campbell L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, 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 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/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		May 17, 2004
Exhibit 32.2









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dahua Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A3 for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hua Meng, 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/ Hua Meng                                                   | 
|Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer                              | 
|(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer) | 



August 28, 2007
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11

                         BAY VIEW CAPITAL CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      At December 31,
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             1999           1998             1997           1996            1995
                                         ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
                                                       (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                     <C>             <C>              <C>             <C>             <C>
Basic earnings (loss) per share:
 Net earnings (loss) available to
  common shareholders                    $   28,964        $  22,719        $  14,021        $  10,969         $   (4,690)
Weighted average shares outstanding/1/       21,169           20,035           12,860           13,703             14,587
                                         ----------         --------        ---------        ---------         -----------
Basic earnings (loss) per share          $     1.37        $    1.13        $    1.09        $    0.80         $    (0.32)
                                         ==========        =========        =========        =========         ===========

Diluted earnings (loss) per share:
 Net earnings (loss) available to
  common shareholders                    $   28,964        $  22,719         $ 14,021       $  10,969          $   (4,690)

Weighted average shares outstanding/1/       21,169           20,035           12,860          13,703              14,587
Dilutive potential common shares/1/             146              300              343             197                   -
Diluted weighted average shares          ----------         --------         --------       ---------          -----------
 Outstanding/1/                              21,315           20,335           13,203          13,900              14,587
                                         ----------         --------         --------       ---------          -----------
Diluted earnings (loss) per share        $     1.36        $    1.12         $   1.06       $    0.79          $    (0.32)
                                         ==========        =========         ========       =========           ==========
</TABLE>
(1)Amounts have been adjusted for a 2-for-1 stock split in the form of a 100%
stock dividend paid June 1997.
CHARLESTON.

#### Bower *v.*The Virginian Ry. Co.

Submitted June 3, 1909.

Decided February 7, 1911.

Appeal and *Ekkok*— Decisions *Beviewahle*— Final *Judgment.*

If, in the trial of an action upon a demurrer to evidence which is sustained, the court does not render a judgment of *nil capiat,*but only for costs, there is no final judgment, and this Court is without jurisdiction to review the case.

Error to Circuit Court, Baleigh County.

Action by B. L. Bower against the Virginian Bailway Company. On an order sustaining á demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff brings error.

*Dismissed.*

*630*File & File,*for plaintiff in error.

*John Key*ancl *McQvnnis & Ua,tcher,*for defendant in error.

"WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT:

This is' an action to recover damages for the killing of plaintiff’s horse. It was originally tried before a justice of the peace and plaintiff recovered judgment for '$125, and costs. The defendant appealed to the circuit court of Kaleigh county, and a trial was there had on the 14th day of April, 1908. Defendant demurred to plaintiff’s -evidence, and the jury returned a verdict fixing the amount of damages at $150, subject to the issue of law to be determined by the court. On the 18th of April the court sustained the demurrer and gave costs to defendant, but failed to enter final judgment upon the merits of the case. Following the finding of the court upon the question of law there should have been a judgment of *nil capiat.*There is" no such judgment, but only a judgment that the defendant recover its costs. There being no final judgment in the action, this Court is without jurisdiction to review it. This case is governed by the following decisions by this Court: *DeArmitt*v. *Town of Whitmer,*63 W. Va, 300; *Epstein*v. *Totten, Id.*603; *Ritchie County Bank*v. *Bee,*60 W. Va, 386; *Corley*v. *Corley, 53 W.*Va. 142; and *Hannah*v. *Bank, Id.*83.

The writ of error will be dismissed as improvidently awarded.

*Dismissed.*
Olympia Address: 

PO Box 40442 

Olympia, WA 98504-0442 

Washington State Senate 

Senator Doug Ericksen 

42nd Legislative District 

(360) 786-7682 

FAX: (360) 786-1323 

E-mail: Doug.Ericksen@leg.wa.gov 

December 19, 2014 

RECEIVEO ON: f 

Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, W A 981 01 

Dear Regional Administrator McLerran, 

I am writing in response to your recent announcement that EPA Region 1 0 will undertake 

rulemaking to adopt human health criteria for Washington's water quality standards. You have 

proposed a highly unusual situation of parallel rulemaking, where both state and federal agencies 

will propose potentially competing standards for the same policy. I believe that your chosen 

course of action will add unnecessary confusion to the policymaking process, and that it will 

severely detract from any state efforts to develop a rule that fits Washington's particular needs. 

Moreover, this is the third time in recent months that I have written to you expressing my 

concern that EPA is disregarding important flexibility that should be provided as a foundation for 

the process of developing state water quality standards. 

Because you intend to push forward with setting rules for Washington, I would like to know the 

answers to the following questions. 

()Recycled 

(1) Is EPA currently developing water quality rules for other states in Region 1 0? If so, what 

rules are being developed, and for which states? 

(2) Is EPA currently developing water quality rules for states in other EPA Regions? If so, 

what rules are being developed, and where do those rules apply? 

(3) In the last six years, has EPA proposed to take control of the water quality rule 

development process in other states? If so, in which states, and has EPA followed 

through on any such proposals? 

(4) What, specifically, will EPA do to ensure ample public participation in its development 

of water quality standards for Washington, and how can the public participate in the 

process? 

(5) Who, specifically, within EPA is authorized to make a final determination to adopt 

human health criteria for Washington's water quality standards? 
' ( ' 

\:if 

,,-

,. 

s.-.- /' 

', .. ,,/. 
Page two 

( 6) What is the particular basis for EPA's view that Washington's current water quality 

standards are deficient? 

I appreciate your prompt response to these questions. 

Sincerely, 

C10 Senator -s: Doug EriCSP~ en, Chair 

Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee 

DE:slr 
I I