alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1942

___________________________

Donnie Ray Dumas

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Matthew A. Falkner; Gary L. Broyles

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: December 7, 2017

Filed: December 12, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Donnie Ray Dumas appeals after theDistrictCourt granted summary judgment

1

to defendants in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Viewing the summary judgment

record in the light most favorable to Dumas and drawing all reasonable inferences in

his favor, we agree with the District Court that summary judgment was warranted. 

See Clay v. Credit Bureau Enters., Inc., 754 F.3d 535, 539 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard

of review). We further conclude that the court did not err in denying Dumas’s motion

to add a habeas claim against the United States Parole Commission. See Kozlov v.

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 394–95 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard

of review). We affirm the judgment.

______________________________

-2-
Kevin SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-617

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| July 29, 2009                              |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                            |   |
|                                            |   |
| /s/ Christopher H. Hopkins                      |   |
| Christopher H. Hopkins, Chief Executive Officer |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

TIMOTHY ANDREW HORAN, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 436 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 349 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 46
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 349

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4865 Tallmadge Road in Rootstown, Ohio, as the ``Marine Sgt. Jeremy 
                        E. Murray Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2011

    Mr. Brown of Ohio (for himself and Mr. Portman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
               Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

                              May 12, 2011

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4865 Tallmadge Road in Rootstown, Ohio, as the ``Marine Sgt. Jeremy 
                        E. Murray Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MARINE SGT. JEREMY E. MURRAY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4865 Tallmadge Road in Rootstown, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Marine Sgt. Jeremy E. Murray Post Office''.
    (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 ``Marine 
Sgt. Jeremy E. Murray Post Office''.
                                                        Calendar No. 46

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 349

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4865 Tallmadge Road in Rootstown, Ohio, as the ``Marine Sgt. Jeremy 
                        E. Murray Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 12, 2011

                       Reported without amendment
```
Case 19-17549-RAM Doc 73-2 Filed 09/19/19 Page 1 of 2
Case 19-17549-RAM Doc 73-2 Filed 09/19/19 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
31.2





CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





REQUIRED
BY RULE 13A - 14(A) OR RULE 15D - 14(A)





I,
   Bob Bates, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:





1.
  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Edgetech
Services Inc.





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





3.
  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.
  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:





(a)
 Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;





(b)
 Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c)
 Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and





5.  
The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control    over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent
functions):





(a) 
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and





(b)
 Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.





Date:
    June 15, 2009
                    /s/   Bob Bates


Chief
Financial Officer
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3561 

To correct the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System Unit L06, Topsail, North Carolina. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To correct the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System Unit L06, Topsail, North 

Carolina. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

4 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The map included in the set of 

6 maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’ re7 ferred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 

8 Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to Unit L06 in Top9 sail, North Carolina, is replaced by the map entitled ‘‘John 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3561 IS

1 H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Corrected 

2 Unit L06’’ and dated llllll. 

3 (b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior 

4 shall keep the replacement map referred to in subsection 

5 (a) on file and available for inspection in accordance with 

6 section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 

7 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
---

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 Energy Quest Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Vasant K. Jain, 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

|Date: May 15, 2009 | /s/ Vasant K. Jain                
|------------------ | ----------------------------------
|                   | Vasant K. Jain                    
|                   | Director, Chief Financial Officer,
|                   | Principal Accounting Officer      

---
FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT HCIRCUIT
JO NAT H O N M ICH AE L CAST RO , Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. CO U NT Y O F L O S ANG E L E S; L O S ANG E L E S SH E RIFF’S DE PART M E NT ; CH RIST O PH E R SO L O M O N; DAV ID VAL E NT I NE , Se r ge ant, aka V a le ntine , De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 12-56829

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-05425-DSF

O R DE R

T H O M A S , C hie f Judge : Upon thevote of a

m a jority of nonre c use d

a c tive judge s, it is ordere d tha t this c a s e be re he ard e n ba n c pursua nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of Appe lla

te Proc e dure 35(a )
and C irc u it R

ule 35-3. Thethre e -judge pa ne l opinion sha

ll not be c ite d a s pre c e de nt by

or to a ny c ourt of theNinth C irc uit. 

# F IL ED
DEC 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3543 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3543

To exempt from the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers 
  by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma 
                           Utility Authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2012

 Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exempt from the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers 
  by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma 
                           Utility Authority.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier Act 
of 2012''.

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT.

    The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) and 
section 42 of title 18, United States Code, shall not apply with 
respect to any water transfer by the North Texas Municipal Water 
District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority using only closed 
conveyance systems from the Lake Texoma raw water intake structure to 
treatment facilities at which all zebra mussels are extirpated and 
removed from the water transferred.
                                 <all>
```
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-20-00012-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF P.E.R., A CHILD 

 

On Appeal from the 237th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2014-510,469, Honorable Les Hatch, Presiding 

 

April 24, 2020 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS1, JJ. 

Appellant, Maia Chpak, appeals from the trial court’s Order in Suit to Modify 

Parent-Child Relationship. Now pending before the Court is Chpak’s motion seeking 

voluntary dismissal of her appeal. The Court finds the motion complies with the 

requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that granting the motion will 

not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. As no 

decision of the Court has been delivered to date, we grant the motion. The appeal is 

dismissed. Because the motion does not address costs, costs will be taxed against

1 Justice Lawrence M. Doss, not participating.
2

Chpak. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our 

mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 82 (Thursday, April 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 20101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9889]


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

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 Volunteer 
Income Tax Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, June 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 a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax 
Issue Committee will be held Tuesday, June 9, 2009, at 2 p.m. Eastern 
Time via telephone conference. 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. Knispel 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: April 22, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-9889 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 20 Filed 09/06/19 Page 1 of 4
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 20 Filed 09/06/19 Page 2 of 4
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 20 Filed 09/06/19 Page 3 of 4
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 20 Filed 09/06/19 Page 4 of 4
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 477-3 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 477-3 Filed 10/22/20 Page 2 of 2
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Intensity and impact of the New York Railroad superstorm of May 1921      

      July 16, 2019    

Analysis is made of low‐latitude ground‐based magnetometer data recording the magnetic superstorm of May 1921. By inference, the storm was driven by a series of interplanetary coronal mass ejections, one of which produced a maximum pressure on the magnetopause of ~64.5 nPa, sufficient to compress the subsolar magnetopause radius to ~5.3 Earth radii. Over the course of the storm, low‐latitude geomagnetic disturbance exhibited extreme local time (longitude) asymmetry that can be attributed to substorm disturbance extending to low latitudes. The storm attained an estimated maximum −Dst on 15 May of 907 ± 132 nT, an intensity comparable to that of the Carrington event of 1859. The May 1921 storm brought spectacular aurorae to the nighttime sky. It also interfered with and damaged telephone and telegraph systems associated with railroad systems in New York City and State. These later effects were due to a combination of three factors: the localized details of geomagnetic vector disturbance, the geographic expression of the Earth's surface impedance tensor, and the configurations and physical parameters of the electrical networks of the day.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Study Area

### Contact

#### Geologic Hazards Science Center

1711 Illinois St.Golden, CO80401United States

303-273-8500

### Explore Search

                  - Natural Hazards
                  - United States
                  - New York

View All **
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SEVERO LOPEZ, JR., a/k/a Tono,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-93-150-P, CA-95-373-P)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Severo Lopez, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lopez, Nos. CR-93-

150-P, CA-95-373-P (W.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 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
Exhibit 10.3

 

ATMEL CORPORATION

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment No. 1 to Amended Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of October 25, 2011, by and between Atmel Corporation (the “Company”) and Steven Laub (“Executive”) and amends that certain Amended Employment Agreement (the “Amended Employment Agreement”) entered into effective as of May 31, 2009, by and between the Company and Executive.

 

1.               Section 7 (a), Section 7(b) and Section 18 of the Amended Employment Agreement are hereby amended by deleting each of the references to the date “August 15, 2008” therein and by inserting the date “May 23, 2011” in the place and stead of each such reference.

 

2.               Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Amended Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Amendment, in the case of the Company by a duly authorized officer, as of the day, month and year written below.

 

 

	
COMPANY:
    	
 
    	
EXECUTIVE:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
ATMEL   CORPORATION
    	
 
    	
STEVEN   LAUB
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ S. Cumming
    	
 
    	
/s/   Steven Laub
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date: 
    	
10/10/11
    	
 
    	
Date:   
    	
10/25/11
    
					


 

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

TIMOTHY M. SHILLING,

Petitioner

v.

PAULA SUE SHILLING,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 93 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

PAULA S. SHILLING,

Respondent

v.

TIMOTHY M. SHILLING,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 94 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.