alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1455

SUSAN JEANETTE SMITH; DEBBIE MARCUS; DAWN SMITH, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROY BECK, d/b/a Twin Peaks, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA96-258-3-19) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Susan Jeanette Smith, Debbie Marcus, Dawn Smith, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Beck , No. CA-96-258-3-19 (D.S.C. Apr. 22, 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
MDE 

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

1800 Washington Boulevard - Baltimore MD 21230 

410-537-3000 - 1-800-633-6101- www.mde.state.md.us 

Martin O'Malley 

Governor 

Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. 

Anthony G. Brown 

Lieutenant Governor 

July 15,2011 

Mr. ShawnM. Garvin 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region III 

1650 Arch Street (3RAOO) 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Dear Mr. Garvin: 

Secretary 

Kathy M. Kinsey 

Deputy Secretary 

The purpose of this letter is to supplement the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision #11-01 

submitted to your office on May 13, 2011 concerning amendments adopted to clarify requirements 

for electric generating stations. 

That SIP revision request included subsection 7-208(f) of the Public Utility Companies Article of 

the Maryland Code-Inclusion of federal and State environmental laws and standards in the 

certificate- governing issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity by the Public 

Services Commission (the Commission). That subsection states: 

(1) The Commission shall include in each certificate it issues under 

subsection (e) of this section: 

(i) the requirements of the federal and State environmental laws and 

standards that are identified by the Department of the Environment; and 

(ii) the methods and conditions that the Commission determines are 

appropriate to comply with those environmental1aws and standards. 

(2) The Commission may not adopt any method or condition under 

paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection that the Department of the Environment 

determines is inconsistent with federal and State environmental laws and 

standards. 

Therefore, prior to the Commission implementing the provisions of either Code of Maryland 

Regulations (COMAR) 20.79.01.07 (Waivers and Modifications) or COMAR 20.79.02.03.C 

(Phased Proceedings Requests), the Maryland Department of the Environment, pursuant to 

~ Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1·800-735-2258 

Via Maryland Relay Service 
Mr. Shawn M. Garvin 

Page 2 

July 15,2011 

subsection 7-208(f), above, will ensure that no waivers, modifications or phased applications are 

issued or accepted that do not comply with the all applicable require~ents of the federal Clean Air 

Act and federal regulations. 

If you have any questions concerning this SIP revision submittal, please feel free to call me at 

(410) 537-3084 or Mr. George (Tad) Aburn, Jr., Director of the Air and Radiation Management 

Administration at (410) 537-3255. 

Sincerely, 

1tM4-----

Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. 

Secretary 

cc: George (Tad) Aburn, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration 

~ Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 

Via Maryland Relay Scn'ice
H. R. 5546

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 United States courthouse to be constructed in Greenville, South 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The United States courthouse to be constructed in Greenville, 

South Carolina, building number SC0017ZZ, shall be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the United States courthouse 

referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

‘‘Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# **EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of United eSystems, Inc. (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”), Jeffery C. Swank, as President of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

| (1)    | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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. |

/s/ Jeffery C. Swank                 Jeffery C. SwankPresidentDate:  August 12, 2005This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1855** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LLOYD MALLORY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of M aryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 00880

- JFM )

Submitted : April 1 8 , 2012 Decided: May 8, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Lloyd Mallory , Appellant Pro Se. Monika L. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lloyd Mallory appeals the district court ’ s garnishment disposition o rder. In his informal brief, Mallory fails to raise any issue directly pertaining to the garnishment order. In fact, Mallory merely argues that th is c ourt should grant a stay of the execution of the garnishment order pending resolution of his direct crim inal appeal. The c ourt has denied his motion for stay and issued judgment in his direct criminal appeal; thus, his request is now moot. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (issues not raised in opening brief are deemed abandoned). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Mallory , No. 1:11

- cv - 00880

- JFM (D. Md. filed July 20 & entered July 21, 20 11)
. We further deny Mallory’s motion for the appointment of 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.
AFF IRMED
**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 United eSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jeffery C.
      Swank, as President of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.





/s/
      Jeffery C. Swank


Jeffery
      C. Swank


President


Date:
      November 13, 2006








This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

HIRAM DEAN BIRD, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-30001 

D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00051-BMM-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2021**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Hiram Dean Bird appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking 

supervised release and imposing a 6-month custodial sentence and 33-month term 

of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

Bird’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-30001 

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Bird the 

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or 

answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

However, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to correct

the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. At the 

revocation hearing, the district court indicated that it was reimposing the special 

conditions from the previous judgment. The special conditions in the instant 

judgment differ from those contained in the previous judgment in two material 

respects. Because the oral pronouncement of the sentence controls, we remand 

solely for the district court to strike “place of employment” from Special Condition 

7 and to strike Special Condition 13. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 

1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (remanding for the district court to make the written 

judgment consistent with the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
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 Exercise for Life Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.







Date:
April 15, 2011 		By: /s/ Jeremy Ostrowski

Jeremy
Ostrowski

President, Secretary and Treasurer

(Chief
Financial and Accounting Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6358]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax 
Assistance Issue Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income 
Tax Credit Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be Friday, May 8, 2009 and Saturday, May 9, 
2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 
718 488-3557.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax 
Credit Issue Committee will be held Friday, May 8, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m. and Saturday, May 9, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. 
Eastern Time in Atlanta, GA. The public is invited to make oral 
comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited 
conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made 
with Marisa Knispel. For more information please contact Ms. Jenkins at 
1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech 
Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the Web 
site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: March 17, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-6358 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
exv10w30






EXHIBIT 10.30




SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT




     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of January
26, 2010, by and between LACROSSE FOOTWEAR, INC., a Wisconsin corporation (“Borrower”) and WELLS
FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (“Bank”).



RECITALS




     WHEREAS, Borrower is the grantor of a Security Agreement granted in favor of Bank dated as of
April 15, 2004 (as amended, the “Security Agreement”).



     WHEREAS, Borrower is currently indebted to Bank pursuant to the terms and conditions of that
certain Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement between Borrower and Bank dated as of March 1,
2009, as amended from time to time, which is the “Credit Agreement” as that term is used in the
Security Agreement.



     WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower have agreed to certain changes in the terms and conditions set
forth in the Security Agreement and have agreed to amend the Security Agreement to reflect said
changes.



     NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:




	1.	 	The final two paragraphs of the Security Agreement are hereby amended to read as follows in
their entirety:
	 
	 	 	Debtor warrants that the address of its chief executive office is 17634 NE Airport Way,
Portland OR 97230, or such other address of which the Debtor notifies the Bank from time to
time.
	 
	 	 	Debtor warrants that the tangible Collateral (except goods in transit or in possession of
repairmen) is or will be located or domiciled at the following additional addresses: 12021
NE Airport Way, Suite B, Portland, OR 97220 (this location is in preparation); 18201 NE
Portal Way, Portland, OR 97230 (this location is in preparation); 12722 NE Airport Way,
Portland, OR 97230; 5352 Performance Way, Whitestown, IN 46075; and 17634 NE Airport Way,
Portland, OR 97230. Debtor sells inventory in the ordinary course of business to LaCrosse
Denmark, which stores it at Niels Ebbesens Vej 19 DK-1911 Frederiksberg, Denmark or at Scan
Global Logistics, True Mollevej 1,8381 Tilst, Denmark, or in transit, and which ships
inventory under customary sale and shipping terms to its customers, and to vendors as
samples, and which disposes of defective or out of date inventory in the ordinary course of
business.





2. In all other respects, the Security Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment to Security
Agreement between the parties hereto dated as of March 1, 2009, remains in full force and effect.






1









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day
and year first written above.



LACROSSE FOOTWEAR, INC.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Joseph P. Schneider
 	 
	 	Joseph P. Schneider 	 
	 	President/Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	 
	By:  	/s/ David P. Carlson
 	 
	 	David P. Carlson 	 
	 	Executive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 



WELLS FARGO BANK,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	By:  	/s/ James R. Bednark
 	 
	 	James R. Bednark 	 
	 	Senior Vice President 	 
	 




2
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**FORM 10-QSB**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

**Quarter ended September 30, 2007**

 

I, James B. Druck, ChiefExecutive Officer of Southwest Casino Corporation (the “Company”) certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of theCompany for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Actof 1934 (15. U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                  The information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperation of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: November 13, 2007 | /s/ James B. Druck      |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                     | James B. Druck          |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2



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



The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy
Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  |                                                                                           
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: November 14, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Bruce C. Sexton
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Bruce C. Sexton,                                                                          
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Chief Financial Officer ofCircus and Eldorado Joint Ventureand Silver Legacy Capital Corp.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00701-CV

EX PARTE Erin JUI

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-08797

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Jason Pulliam, Justice

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 4, 2015

AFFIRMED

The Bexar County Sheriff’s Office (the “Sheriff’s Office”) appeals the trial court’s order 

expunging all records concerning Erin Jui’s arrest for theft. In a single issue, the Sheriff’s Office 

contends the trial court’s expunction order is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We 

affirm the trial court’s order.

The Sheriff’s Office contends Jui was not entitled to expunction under Article 55.01 of the 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure because Jui received deferred adjudication probation for the 

offense. The Sheriff’s Office also asserts Jui failed to establish by legally sufficient evidence that

Jui had not received court-ordered community supervision, thereby failing to comply with the 

statutory requirements for expunction. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 55.01(a)(2) (West 2014). 
04-14-00701-CV

We agree with the Sheriff’s Office that, pursuant to Article 55.01(a)(2), Jui would not be 

entitled to an expunction of her arrest records if she received court-ordered community 

supervision. See Ex parte Green, 373 S.W.3d 111, 113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.) 

(holding that to be entitled to expunction, the petitioner must meet all statutory requirements under 

Article 55.01). Attachments to the answer filed by the Texas Department of Public Safety indicate 

that Jui received deferred adjudication and would, therefore, not be entitled to an expunction. 

However, attachments to pleadings are not evidence unless they are offered and admitted as 

evidence by the trial court. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Sowell, No. 11-10-00018-CV, 2011 WL 

3359716, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Aug. 4, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). 

Here, no reporter’s record was made of the expunction hearing. The trial court’s order 

states that “[a]fter presentation of evidence, it is the decision of the [trial] [c]ourt that Petitioner is 

entitled to have [her] records expunged.” Because there is no reporter’s record, we are unable to 

determine what evidence the trial court considered in granting the expunction. The Sheriff’s 

Office’s attempt at filling the void by referring to DPS’s answer and its attachments is ineffective 

to show that the evidence was insufficient to establish Jui’s entitlement to an expunction. Ex parte 

Cheeks, No. 07-11-0430-CV, 2012 WL 952112, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 21, 2012, 

no pet.) (mem. op.). Without a record of the evidence presented at the hearing, we cannot hold 

that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the expunction; therefore, the trial court’s order 

is affirmed.

Jason Pulliam, Justice

- 2 -