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

**No. 10**  **- 7693** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ERNEST LEE ROGERS, JR. , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Spartanburg
. Margaret B. Seymour , District Judge. ( 7:02

- cr - 00325

- MBS

- 2; 7:04

- cv - 00254

- MBS )

Submitted : July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judg es.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ernest Lee Rogers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ernest Lee Rogers, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying motions he filed on September 28, 2010 , in his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) proceedings seeking to dismiss the indictment, or inspect the list of grand juror names and to dismiss for selective prosecution or , in the alternative , convene a federal grand jury and disclose grand jury transcripts. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standar d 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, 336

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

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss3 the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ad equately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
LF-70 (rev. 12/01/09)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In re: Case No.: 19-22952-RAM

Chapter 13

Maria E Mejia

 Debtor(s) /

OBJECTION TO CLAIM ON SHORTENED NOTICE

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO CREDITOR: THIS IS AN OBJECTION 

TO YOUR CLAIM

This objection seeks either to disallow or reduce the amount or change the 

priority status of the claim filed by you or on your behalf. Please read this objection 

carefully to identify which claim is objected to and what disposition of your claim is 

recommended. Upon the filing of this objection an expedited hearing on this objection 

will be scheduled on the date already scheduled for the confirmation hearing in 

accordance with Local Rule 3007-1(B)(2).

Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3007 and Local Rule 3007-1(B)(2), the [trustee][debtor] 

objects to the following claim filed in this case:

Claim Amount of

No. Name of Claimant Claim 

1-2 Internal Revenue Service $485.35

Basis for Objection and Recommended Disposition

On or about January 10, 2020, Creditor filed an amended proof of claim in the amount of 

$485.35 with a priority amount of $95.41. The Creditor alleges that the priority amount is 

estimated because the Debtor has not filed a return for the 2016 tax year. The Debtor 

responded to the Creditor stating that the Debtor was not required to file her 2016 taxes 

because she did not work that year. Debtor requests the portion of the amended claim relating 

to the 2016 tax year be stricken and disallowed and therefore the claim should be reduced to 

$389.95 as an unsecured general claim only.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that I have contacted and left a voicemail to Creditor’s agent in an 

attempt to resolve these issues without a hearing. 

The undersigned acknowledges that this objection and the notice of hearing for this objection 

will be served on the claimant and the debtor at least 14 days prior to the confirmation hearing 

date and that a certificate of service conforming to Local Rule 2002-1(F) must be filed with 

the court when the objection and notice of hearing are served.

DATED: January 16, 2020 Respectfully Submitted: 

Robert Sanchez, P.A.

355 West 49th Street

Hialeah, FL 33012

Fl. Bar No. 0442161

Telephone: (305) 687-8008

E-Mail: court@bankruptcyclinic.com

Case 19-22952-RAM Doc 22 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 1
^u. RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS A 

### inJ-*£ :EB 24 2015

•• ^USi-CTGQotcly-lsJII€> fS\ 

## ft)V.' fjffc/e tyco'sin, CLrJ{c o*r>e HOW (cuaJM^lL. 

### £ cA fry-s *6f\© * g&ff/ TtMtJu.'NiieA. 

### b>*it*t fiywfc&reA nvspHbliN' L^bh^tM J% &*s it\ r}% m* 1^><ja f^tJufih**^ f)hour p) j-r UJ^ 'QM r)€JJ)(t^ hj ^3 O-t&f/^ru ?A^><ja tjf^ujjfitNc nbouT r^ :K US\, I htA r)e.y)tt^ r) pee*/re.'"' 

### £f)c>7 Decease £' Co/ont LaaT£&/^eX (jl^e/^Q-Tfo^pUfrhl ^^eYr<iVv^e;r!jL/iLs^a"6v *A^n natf^, ••(^A^yno T\ee.-p Cj ooi- 

### _$?7cr(oi//r/)e f/nQ& Aiwa ujtrh ah f^e pQ/V/ih&oIfe^i***/ fr)£>

it *> t & ? * $ V^r I ****** * / / v"\ j i ^ r^e,jr)«V^ L4 bts t# C4 c «•* / y> m'4S ta * <•»<* 

### uct-* r^ySte*i'iM^ 0/sa ^ £r/*»!«)£»• igrno 

### C^u5e.s-/ /^e-- r6 bfa'^b/etb tJfrTlWQ a(^u- -ffrcalfltt^^Ms fr^e.3

(o>w-C*


### '^4tta>L -^S ^ o) i&// riha -Cpdrfrbi- Gm <wST" ^ha 'JiiU-lifitf i 

### Hyui GaJ Bkss (J^ Of/. /ttfd$ U}*6* 7 (Q_ 

### O^g^yftUA^8
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18
of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Intersil Corporation (Intersil), that the quarterly report of Intersil on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 28, 2008, 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 such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of Intersil.



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                    
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------
|Date: May 2, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ David B. Bell                  
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | David B. Bell                      
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | President & Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 2, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ David A. Zinsner               
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | David A. Zinsner                   
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer            



51
## In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_____________________ _____ 09
- 13
- 00173
- CR 09
- 13
- 00174
- CR 09
- 13
- 00175
- CR

__________________________

___ ______________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No s . 09
- 07250 , 09
- 07323, and 09
- 07326

_________________________________________________________________ O RDER The clerk’s record in the above styled and numbered cause was filed May 16, 2013 , and the reporter’s record was filed April 15, 2013

. On July 12, 2013, the appellant’s court

- appointed attorney, Bruce Cobb , was notified that neither the brief of the appe llant nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief has been filed. On July 17, 2013 , the Court granted an extension of time to file the brief, noting that the extension was a “FINAL EXTENSION.” Although the Charles Murray Jr. a/k/a Charles Murray , Appellant V . The State of Texas , Appelleebrief of the appellant was due to be fi led August 16, 2013, the brief has not been filed. We abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing at which a representative of the State, counsel for the appellant, and the appellant shall be present in person. See Tex. R . App. P. 38.8(b)(3). If the appellant is not incarcerated, but fails to appear at the hearing after having been notified to do so, or after reasonable attempts to notify him have been made, then the trial court may enter a finding that appellant no longe r desires to pursue the appeal and send said finding to this Court. See Tex. R. App. P

. 38.8(b)(4). If the appellant is present for the hearing, we direct the trial court to determine whether or not appellant desires to pursue his appeal. If appellant desires to pursue his appeal, we direct the trial court to determine why the brief of the appellant has not been filed, why appellant’s counsel has not responded to late notices from this Court, and whether good cause exists for appointed counsel, Bruce Co bb , to be relieved of his duties as appellate counsel and replaced by substitute counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. A rt. 26.04(j)(2) (West Supp. 2012). If the trial court determines that good cause exists to relieve appointed counsel of his duties, we direct the trial court to appoint substitute counsel.The record of the hearing, including any orders and findings of the trial court judge, shall be sent to the appellate court for filing. The transcription of the court reporter’s notes from the hear ing and the recommendations of the trial court judge are to be filed on or before September 30, 2013. ORDER ENTERED August 29, 2013.
PER CURIAM Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76

 37

 38

 39

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/15

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Introduction to Potential Fields: Magnetics      

      January 1, 1997    

View Document

No abstract available.

## Citation Information
##### 



EXHIBIT 4
 CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Pengrowth Energy Trust (the Registrant);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 annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))) for the Registrant 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 Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;(b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant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;(c)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of Registrants board of directors (and persons performing the equivalent
function):




---



##### 



(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 Registrant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 registrants internal controls over financial
reporting.
 Date:  March 29, 2006
    By:
    /s/  James S. KinnearJames S. KinnearChairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 02-2390 GEORGE ECONOMOU, Petitioner, Appellant,

v. PETER A. PEPE, JR., Respondent, Appellee. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on May 18, 2004 is amended as follows: Page 10, line 29 of footnote 4: "three" should be "there"
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3503 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the provision of workstudy allowances by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to individuals 

who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education, or training under 

laws administered by the Secretary, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2012 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

provision of work-study allowances by the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to individuals who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education, or training under laws 

administered by the Secretary, and for other purposes. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 3503 IS

1 SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT OF WORK-STUDY ALLOWANCES 

2 FOR INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING EDUCATIONAL 

3 ASSISTANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF VET4 ERANS AFFAIRS. 

5 (a) MINIMUM UTILIZATION AT EDUCATIONAL INSTI6 TUTIONS.—Subsection (c) of section 3485 of title 38, 

7 United States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through 

9 (4) as subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively; 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Sec12 retary’’; and 

13 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

14 paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(2) The Secretary shall utilize the services, in con16 nection with the activities specified in subsection (a)(1), 

17 of at least one individual described in subsection (b) at 

18 each educational institution that has an office established 

19 to provide assistance to a veteran who is enrolled in a pro20 gram of education at the institution.’’. 

21 (b) OUTREACH SERVICES CONDUCTED THROUGH

22 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.—Subparagraph (G) of 

23 subsection (a)(4) of such section is amended by inserting 

24 ‘‘or local government’’ after ‘‘of a State’’. 

25 (c) OTHER VETERANS-RELATED POSITIONS IN GOV26 ERNMENT ENTITIES.—Subparagraph (J) of such submstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 3503 IS

1 section is amended by inserting ‘‘or a Federal, State, or 

2 local government entity, as the Secretary considers appro3 priate’’ before the period at the end. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD 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 Optio Software, Inc. (the Company)
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Caroline Bembry, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting
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, as amended; 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: June 14, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Caroline Bembry    
|                    |  |     |  | Caroline Bembry        
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
exv4w44



 





EXHIBIT
4.44



THIS LOAN AGREEMENT is made on the 28th day of December 2007.




BETWEEN:





	(1)	 	Top Eastern Investment Limited, a limited company incorporated under the laws of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region (“Hong Kong”) and whose registered office is at Suites
1506-1508, 15th Floor, One Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place, Central, Hong Kong
(the “Borrower”); and






	(2)	 	Nam Tai Electronic & Electrical Products Limited, a limited company incorporated under the
laws of the Cayman Islands and whose registered office is at Cricket Square, Hutchins Drive,
P.O. Box 2681, Grand Cayman KY1-1111, Cayman Islands (the “Lender”).




IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:





	1.	 	The Lender hereby agrees to lend to the Borrower an interest-free loan of HK$24,107,111 (the
“Loan”) on 31st December 2007.






	2.	 	The Borrower hereby agrees to repay the Loan to the Lender immediately upon demand of the
Lender, which demand may be made orally or in writing.






	3.	 	This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed by and
construed in all respects in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong and the parties hereto
hereby irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Courts.




IN WITNESS whereof this Agreement has been duly executed the day and year first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SIGNED by Mr. Chui Kam Wai, Director,

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	for and on behalf of Top Eastern Investment

	 	 	)	 	 	/s/ [signature illegible]
	Limited in the presence of :

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	/s/ K. H. Lee

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	K. H. Lee 
	 	 	)	 	 	 
	Senior In-House Counsel
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SIGNED by Ms. Wong Kuen Ling, Karene,

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	Director, for and on behalf of Nam Tai

	 	 	)	 	 	/s/ [signature illegible]
	Electronic & Electrical Products Limited,

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	in the presence of :

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	/s/ K. H. Lee

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	K. H. Lee 
	 	 	)	 	 	 
	Senior In-House Counsel
	 	 	)
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No . FAA - 2014 - 0515 Directorate ID : 2014 - SW - 036 - AD Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 194 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to to detect a crack and to prevent failure of the Fenestron to tailboom junction frame, which could result in loss of the Fenestron and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $60,000 to replace a junction frame Labor per Helicopter ( 1 work- hour x $ 8 5 /work hour for the dye -penetrant inspection ) (0.5 work - hour x $85/work hour for the borescope inspection ) (50 work - hour x $85/work hour for the junction frame repl acement) $ 85 per dye -penetrant inspection $43 per borescope inspection $4,250 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $85 per dye -penetrant inspection $43 per borescope inspection $64,250 for the junction frame replacement Total US Fleet Co st $ 16,490 for the dye -penetrant inspection , per inspection cycle $8,342 for the borescope inspection, per inspection cycle Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Robert Grant
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Interim report on the investigation of flooding in the Tug Fork basin of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia      

      January 1, 1980    

View Document

View Plate

View Plate

An analytical plan is presented for a study of the effects of land-use changes on the magnitude and frequency of flood-peak flows and on sediment characteristics of the Tug Fork in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. The plan includes compilation and analysis of available data, collection of new data on small, single land-use drainage areas for deterministic computer modeling, and creation of a computer model of the Tug Fork basin for definition of cumulative land-use impacts.

Also presented is a compilation of the available hydrologic data and a description of related studies expected to provide information and data useful to the ongoing work. The data compilation includes: Hourly precipitation for selected days and annual maximum daily precipitation for nine sites, annual maximum streamflow rates and stages for three stream-gaging sites, hourly gageheight and discharge rates for selected storms at four stream-gaging sites, flood profiles, flood-frequency relations, and other streamflow information.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Tug Fork basin
                  - Kentucky
                  -  Virginia
                  -  West Virginia

View All **
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10765 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HERNAN MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-187-1-Y

-------------------- February 20, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hernan Molina appeals from an order denying his motion to correct sentence pursuant to F ED . R. C RIM . P. 35 and F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). Molina filed this appeal after the district court dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as time-barred, and after an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a certificate of appealability from the district court and this court. This court reviews the denial of a Rule 35 motion under a gross abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Sinclair ,No. 01-10765 -2- 1 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 1993). In Molina’s case, none of the conditions for granting his Rule 35 motion exist. See United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140-42 (5th Cir. 1994). Similarly, Molina’s reliance on Rule 60(b) fails. The district court arguably should have treated Molina’s 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition and dismissed it for failure to obtain authorization from this court to file a successive petition. See United States v. Rich , 141 F.3d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1998); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). In any event, Molina’s failure to brief the propriety of the district court’s denial of his motion abandoned the only issue on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED