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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6614

JOSEPH RIDDICK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOYCE K. CONLEY, Dr., Warden, FEDERAL

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION at Beckley, WV;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-01-899-2)

Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Riddick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Riddick appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Riddick v. Conley, No. CA-01-899-2 (E.D. Va. filed Apr.

1, 2002; entered Apr. 2, 2002). 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
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5416 

To provide for grants to conduct research toward the development of a 

vaccine against Valley Fever. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2006 

Mr. THOMAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for grants to conduct research toward the 

development of a vaccine against Valley Fever. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Valley Fever Vaccine 

5 Development Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON VACCINE AGAINST VAL7 LEY FEVER. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—In supporting research on the de9 velopment of vaccines against human diseases, the Sec10 retary of Health and Human Services, acting through the 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5416 IH

1 Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Preven2 tion, shall make grants for the purpose of conducting re3 search toward the development of a vaccine against coc4 cidioidomycosis (commonly known as Valley Fever). 

5 (b) SUNSET.—No grant may be made under sub6 section (a) on or after October 1, 2012. The preceding 

7 sentence does not have any legal effect on payments under 

8 grants for which amounts appropriated under subsection 

9 (c) were obligated prior to such date. 

10 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For the 

11 purpose of making grants under subsection (a), there are 

12 authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be nec13 essary for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2012. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
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 World Health Alternatives, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc D. Roup,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; 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/ Marc D. Roup       
|                       
|Marc D. Roup           
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|May 17, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.01








CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Smith Barney Charter Campbell L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Davis, President of Demeter Management LLC, 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 DavisName:
Walter DavisTitle:
President ofDemeter Management LLC,General Partner of the registrantDate:
November 10, 2010
**Exhibit 15.1**

----

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED  PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in  Registration Statement No. 333-81825 on Form S-8 and in Amendment No. 1 to Registration  Statement No. 333-110941 on Form F-3 of our reports dated May 29, 2007, relating  to the financial statements of Vodafone Group Plc (which expresses an unqualified  opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the nature and effect  of differences between International Financial Reporting Standards and accounting  principles generally accepted in the United States of America) and Management's  Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, appearing in this Annual  Report on Form 20-F of Vodafone Group Plc for the year ended March 31, 2007.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP  Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditors  London, England  June 11, 2007

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Noble Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A.
Jackson, Senior Vice President and 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 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.



August 9, 2004                              /s/  MARK A. JACKSON
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Mark A. Jackson
                                            Senior Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            of Noble Corporation
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 15, 2016 522893 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of

ANGELIST M. ALSBROOKS,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 25, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Rose, JJ.

__________

Angelist M. Alsbrooks, Saint Albans, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Mary

Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance

Appeal Board, filed July 14, 2015, which ruled, among other

things, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment

insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Decisions affirmed. No opinion.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Rose, JJ., concur.
-2- 522893 

ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.1



                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     This certification is being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
certification is included solely for the purpose of complying with the
provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not to be used for
any other purpose. In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. for the quarter ended February 28, 2005, I, Lisa
R. Powell, hereby certify in my capacity as an officer of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc.
that to my knowledge:

     1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. for the
quarter ended February 28, 2005, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Rub
A Dub Soap, Inc. for the quarter ended February 28, 2005, fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rub
A Dub Soap, Inc.



Date:  April 18, 2005                 /s/ Lisa R. Powell
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Lisa R. Powell,  President, Secretary,
                                    Treasurer and Director (Principal
                                    Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA20 IS""-tUM- o 2 Z- AJ) Directorate Identifier: -AD 

((nm make clumKes fo the ralues iiJ ilw tahle he/ow. you IIIIlS! <.?f/Slll't! 1/te totu/s update (l(;cordingly. {I 

!hey do 11 01. click ror TahJ info multhen ow of the clumP,ed (.;d/. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Repetitive 4.0 174 Inspection? 

1.\'i(~/ b-<X l =it 

' 

. ' 

l ' 

i > 

" 

' ' } <{ 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of com pi iance for U.S. fleet: $59,160 

Costs covered under warranty (ifknmvu) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 0 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might nol be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory act "?~, 

YES* D NO ~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? G 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. -

YESO NO~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

JULY 22, 2014

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b).

1. Case No. SD33047

Re: PAUL ALLEN WILLIAMS,

Movant-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent-Respondent.
Sylvester PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

ED 105262

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: June 12, 2018

Gwenda R. Robinson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Evan J. Buchheim, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before: Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Sylvester Porter appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 29.15 (2014) after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

*929The decision is affirmed. Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2018).
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Luz D. Valerio, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 621]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 20, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, *inter alia,*that claimant was ineli*939gible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant, a home health care aide, was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she declined offers of suitable employment. According to testimony and evidence presented on behalf of the employer, claimant refused numerous work assignments on April 2, 1998 citing a personal reason and claiming that the commute was too far. Although claimant maintained that no employment offers were conveyed to her, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see, Matter of Palmer [Commissioner of Labor],*265 AD2d 787). Under the circumstances presented here, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision *(see, Matter of Gibbs [Commissioner of Labor],*273 AD2d 672; *Matter of Palmer [Commissioner of Labor], supra).*Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
----

|   |   |                                                                         |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | /s/                James G. LeSieur                                          |   |
|   |   | James                G. LeSieur                                              |   |
|   |   | Interim              Chief Executive Officer                                 |   |
|   |   |                                                                         |   |
|   |   |                                                                         |   |
|   |   | /s/              Gordon Fong                                            |   |
|   |   | Gordon              Fong                                                     |   |
|   |   | Executive Vice              President and Chief Financial Officer  |   |

----
"):;^V\RTMENT OF 

•-[•^SPORWIOM 

••;^'ZT0PER/V[10i'i3 

SERVED JULY 15, 2011 

m\ JUM9 P h 3U 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON; DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WESTMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP06NM0008 

(Civi[ rciv.iUy Action) 

DMS FAA-2nU6-26338 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On November 16, 2006, the Federal Aviation Adniinistralion ("Coniplainant") 

filed a Complaint. Respondent Wcstmark Industries, Inc. ("Respondent") had earlier 

filed a Request for Hearing. 

On July 12, 2011, Respondent withdrew its Request for Hearing, citing settlement 

of the matter. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing is hereby granted; and 
2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

(win 

Administrative Law Judge 

Atlachment - Service List 
V, 

FAA Docket No. CP06NMdo08 \ 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000' 

ONE COPY 

Michael Offer, Owner 

Westmark Industries, Respondent 

6701 S.W. McEwanRoad 

Lake Oswego, OR 97035-7815 

TEL: 503-620-0945 

FAX' 503-639-6749 

Scott R. Morris, Conipkiinanf \s Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

•1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton,WA 98055-4099 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Adnnnisirative Unv Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S; Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El 2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Ser\'ice was by U.S. Mail. For scr\'ice in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 2059 U Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 4, 2010



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

D ANIEL A. M ANION

, Circuit Judge

T ERENCE T. E VANS

, Circuit Judge



### No

. 09

- 3385

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

L ARRY D. B ILLIAN

, Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Northern District of Indiana

, Fort Wayne Division.

No. 1:08

- CR

- 31

Willia m C. Lee

, Judge

.

Order

Our opinion in this appeal, 600 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2010), concluded that Billian’s conviction is valid but, after identifying an error in the G uidelines calculation, ordered a limited remand “so that the district judge can tell u s whether the error in converting pounds to kilograms affected the exercise of discretion in sentencing. If the judge answers yes, we will remand for a full resentencing; if the judge answers no, we will affirm Billian’s sentence.” The district judge has i nformed us that the error did affect Billian’s sentence. Therefore, although Billian’s conviction is affirmed, his sentence is

now vacate d, and the case is remanded for resentencing. The mandate will issue immediately. N ONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
H. R. 5504

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and six 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6029 

Broadmoor Street in Mission, Kansas, as the ‘‘Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LARRY WINN, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, Kansas, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
STATE of North Carolina v. Rodney Eugene JONES

No. COA18-502

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 7, 2019

APPEAL DISMISSED; PETITIONS DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  500,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          538,167
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,467
<OTHER-SE>                                   (602,634)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  334,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (351,842)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (351,842)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (1,400,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,751,842)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.1
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-81825 and
333-149634 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-144978 on Form F-3 of our reports
dated May 27, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Vodafone Group Plc,
and the effectiveness of Vodafone Group Plcs internal control over financial reporting,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Vodafone Group Plc for the year ended March
31, 2008.
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditors
London, United Kingdom
June 6, 2008
FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
STATE OF WASHINGTON a nd STATE OF M INNESOTA,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. DONALD J. TR

UM P, Pre s ide nt of the Unite d State s; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 17-35105

D.C . No. 2:17-c v-00141 W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, Se a ttle
ORDER

T H O M A S , C hie f Judge : The Unite d State s ha s re pre se nte d to the C ourt tha

t the Pre side nt inte nds to issue a ne w Exe c utive Orde r and ha s urge d the C ourt to “hold its c o nside ra tion of the c a se until the

Pre side nt issue s the ne w Orde r.” The Unite d State s ha s furthe r
re pre se nte d tha

t it will inform

the C ourt of a

ny ne wde ve lopm e nts. En ba nc proc e e dings be fore this C o urt a re sta y e d pe nding furthe r Orde r of this C ourt. 

# F IL ED
F EB 16 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS