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

**No. 13**  **- 6949** 

SHAWN L. GOODMAN , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, North Carolina Dept. of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00596

- LPA )

Submitted : October 30, 2013 Decided: November 14, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Shawn L. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shawn L. Goodman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealab ility. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisone r satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 33 6

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slac k , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goodman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 accompanying
Annual Report of Apollo Capital Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ramon Cachafeiro
Troitiño, Secretary-Treasurer (principal 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, to the best of my knowledge,
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 fully presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By:
              /s/ Ramon Cachafeiro
    TroitiñoRamon
      Cachafeiro TroitiñoSecretary-Treasurer(principal
      financial officer)May
      12, 2010
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 19 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code), the undersigned officer of Petrobras Argentina S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 29, 2015 |  |  |  | /s/ Luis Miguel Sas    
|                     |  |  |  | Luis Miguel Sas        
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Chief Financial Officer Certification**

 

Inconnection with General Maritime Corporation’s (the “Company”) annual report onForm 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)         The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)         The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 1, 2010 | /s/ Jeffrey D. Pribor |
|--------------------------|-----------------------|
|                     | Name:                 | Jeffrey D. Pribor |
|                     | Title:                | Executive Vice President  and Chief |
|                     |                  | Financial Officer |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-4228 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-107-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

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

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replacement and 

operational check 6.0 $ 510.00 $0 $ 510.00 22 $11,220.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $11,220

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

0.0 $ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

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

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* 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.

YES 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* NO 

*Explanation:
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ POP TOP CORP., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

RAKUTEN KOBO INC., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2021

- 2174

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 4:20

- cv

- 04482

- DMR, Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ATTHEW M ICHAEL W AWRZYN , Wawrzyn LLC, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

J OSHUA L EE R ASKIN , Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by J USTIN A LBANO M AC L EAN

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is Case: 21-2174 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 05/04/2022O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE , Chief Judge

, N EWMAN and S TOLL , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 4, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 21-2174 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 05/04/2022
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
 th
 Recitals
 A.
    
    Pursuant to that certain Agreement of Purchase and Sale and Joint Escrow Instructions
dated July 13, as amended (the Agreement) between Assignor and West Oahu Mall Associates,
LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company (Seller) and subject to the terms therein,
Assignor has a right to purchase, and Seller has an obligation to sell, that certain real
property located in Honolulu, Hawaii, commonly known as Waianae Mall and more particularly
described on Exhibit A attached hereto (collectively, the Property)
 B.
    
    Assignor desires to assign, and Assignee desire to receive assignment of, all of
Assignors rights, title and interest in and to the Agreement, as set forth in this
Assignment.
 Agreement
  1.
    
    Recitals. The above Recitals are hereby incorporated into this Assignment as
if fully set forth herein.
 2.
    
    Assignment. Pursuant to its rights under Section 8.3 of the Agreement,
Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee, all of Assignors right, title and interest in the
Agreement. Assignee executes this Assignment below for the purpose of evidencing their
acceptance of the foregoing assignment.
 3.
    
    Counterparts; Signatures. This Assignment may be executed in any number of
counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute this Assignment. Signatures
transmitted by facsimile, e-mail or similar electronic means shall be deemed originals in
all respects for purposes of this Assignment.
 Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signatures to follow on next page(s).




---



##### 



ASSIGNOR:
    
    TNP ACQUISITIONS, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability companyIts:
    
    Sole MemberBy:
    
    Thompson National Properties, LLC
a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    
    /s/ Wendy J. WorcesterName: Wendy J. WorcesterTitle: Chief Administrative OfficerASSIGNEE:
    
    TNP SRT WAIANAE MALL, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    
    TNP Strategic Retail Operating Partnership, LP,
a Delaware limited partnershipIts:
    
    Sole MemberBy:
    
    TNP Strategic Retail Trust, Inc., 
a Maryland corporationIts:
    
    General PartnerBy:
    
    /s/ Wendy J. WorcesterName: Wendy J. WorcesterTitle: Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary




---



##### 



Exhibit A  Legal Description
 PARCEL FIRST
  
  PARCEL SECOND
    PARCEL THIRD
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 552 

Requiring Members of the House of Representatives whose Members’ Representational Allowance is used to pay expenses incurred for official 

travel to provide the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives with detailed information on the travel, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2023 

Ms. PORTER (for herself and Mr. CROW) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Requiring Members of the House of Representatives whose 

Members’ Representational Allowance is used to pay expenses incurred for official travel to provide the Chief 

Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives 

with detailed information on the travel, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency in Tax4 payer-Funded Travel Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 552 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING MEMBERS WHOSE MEMBERS’ REP2 RESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE IS USED FOR 

3 TRAVEL EXPENSES TO PROVIDE DETAILED 

4 TRAVEL INFORMATION TO CHIEF ADMINIS5 TRATIVE OFFICER. 

6 (a) INFORMATION REQUIRED.—If the Members’ Rep7 resentational Allowance for the office of a Member of the 

8 House of Representatives is used to pay expenses incurred 

9 for official travel, the Member shall provide the Chief Ad10 ministrative Officer of the House of Representatives with 

11 the following information with respect to the travel: 

12 (1) The identification of the individual who in13 curred the expenses. 

14 (2) The date on which the expenses were in15 curred. 

16 (3) The location at which the expenses were in17 curred. 

18 (4) The identification of each recipient of a 

19 payment for the expenses. 

20 (5) The nature of the official and representa21 tional duties which were carried out while the indi22 vidual engaged in the travel. 

23 (b) INCLUSION IN QUARTERLY DISBURSEMENT RE24 PORTS.—The Chief Administrative Officer shall include 

25 the information provided under subsection (a) in the quar26 terly statement of disbursements of the House. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 552 IH 

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with 

2 respect to expenses incurred on or after the date of the 

3 adoption of this resolution. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[No. 29584-9-II.

Division Two.

April 13, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Kevin Michael Bickle, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 02-1-03720-0, Kitty-Ann van Doorninck, J., entered October 31, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, C.J., and Hunt, J.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 528 

Expressing support for the designation of June as ‘‘National Annuity 

Awareness Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2023 

Mr. NUNN of Iowa (for himself and Ms. PETTERSEN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of June as ‘‘National 

Annuity Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas annuities provide a predictable way to meet immediate, ongoing, and future financial obligations and objectives in retirement; 

Whereas surveys consistently indicate that the vast majority 

of individuals in the United States are looking for a financial solution that provides the benefits offered by annuities, specifically the ability to address the critical concern of running out of money during retirement; 

Whereas outliving retirement savings can— 

(1) create a financial hardship that reduces the 

standard of living in retirement; 

(2) defeat the fulfillment of legacy goals; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 528 IH 

(3) require dependence on family and friends for 

monetary support; 

Whereas millions of individuals in the United States currently 

lack an adequate level of guaranteed income in retirement to ensure a secure financial future for themselves 

and their loved ones; 

Whereas research indicates that an owner of an annuity has 

a higher confidence in overall retirement readiness; 

Whereas an annuity is the only product in the financial marketplace that can provide guaranteed lifetime income; 

Whereas determining the type of annuity to buy and when to 

take income is one of the most important financial decisions a consumer will ever make, and individuals and 

families can benefit greatly from the expert guidance of 

a financial professional; and 

Whereas numerous stakeholders who support annuities have 

designated June as ‘‘National Annuity Awareness 

Month’’, the goals of which are— 

(1) to educate consumers on annuity benefits; 

(2) to support access to annuities to meet the individual financial goals of consumers; and 

(3) to encourage savers to seek professional guidance to implement annuities effectively in income and legacy planning: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses support for the designation of 

3 ‘‘National Annuity Awareness Month’’; and 

4 (2) calls on the United States Government, the 

5 States, localities, schools, nonprofit organizations, 

6 businesses, and the people of the United States to 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 528 IH 

1 observe National Annuity Awareness Month with ap2 propriate programs and activities. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Gonzalez, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 825]

Judgment, *274Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered September 16, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years on each conviction, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. When viewed in light of the actions of the other participants in the transaction, the totality of defendant’s conduct, with particular reference to his use of what reasonably appeared to be a prearranged signal to his accomplice, warrants the conclusion that defendant acted as a steerer in the drug operation and did not merely provide information as to where drugs could be purchased *(see, People v Bello,*92 NY2d 523).

Defendant’s double jeopardy argument concerning his simultaneous conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and in or near school grounds is without merit. “The prohibition against double jeopardy is not implicated when a defendant receives cumulative or multiple punishments for the same offense in a single prosecution as opposed to successive prosecutions [citations omitted] * * * Moreover, [defendant] received concurrent sentences, thereby eliminating any issue of multiple punishments.” *(People v Leung,*272 AD2d 88, 89.)

Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 52 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5974]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11692 and <greek-i>11693]


Pennsylvania Disaster <greek-i>PA-00020

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Pennsylvania dated 03/12/2009.
    Incident: Fire.
    Incident Period: 01/24/2009.
    Effective Date: 03/12/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 5/11/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/12/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary Counties: Chester.
Contiguous Counties:
    Delaware: New Castle.
    Maryland: Cecil.
    Pennsylvania: Berks, Delaware, Lancaster, and Montgomery.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      5.375
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere................      2.687
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      7.750
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11692 5 
and for economic injury is 11693 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are: 
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)
    Dated: March 12, 2009.
Darryl K. Hairston,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-5974 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M. 3852 — Hyundai Motor Company/Hyundai Car UK Ltd)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 141/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----
[No. 29994-1-II.

Division Two.

April 27, 2004.]

#### *In the Matter of the Detention of*Raymond Marshall, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 00-2-04434-1, John F. Nichols, J., entered February 21, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Hunt, JJ. Now published at 122 Wn. App. 132.