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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6338

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BROOKS THOMAS LACKEY BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00237-RLV-DCK-5; 5:09-cv00048-RLV)

Submitted: July 29, 2013 Decided: August 9, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifford James Barnard, CLIFFORD J. BARNARD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 

Boulder, Colorado, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; Kevin Zolot, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brooks Thomas Lackey Brown seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 

prisoner 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, 336-38 (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 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 Brown 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 legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - (-)multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - (-)news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

## By Year

Interviews        August 30, 2009        The Water Beneath Our Feet: New Study on California's Central Valley Groundwater Level Decline

newsletter        September 30, 2004      Sound Waves Newsletter - September 2004

newsletter        February 27, 2009      Sound Waves Newsletter - January-February 2009

newsletter        November 1, 2018      Sound Waves Newsletter - October-November 2018

Interviews        March 3, 2011        New model gives insight to the potential future of the Pacific walrus

Interviews        April 17, 2012        Press Conference: USGS World Estimate for Conventional Oil and Gas Resources

Interviews        September 6, 2011        Stranger than Fiction: The Secret Lives of Freshwater Mussels

Interviews        January 5, 2010        Public Lecture: Flight from Extinction: Helping Whooping Cranes Survive

Interviews        April 6, 2010        Public Lecture: Wandering Wildlife: Tracking movement, migrations and mileage, from wolves to wading birds
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 Dynamic Response Group, Inc; (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Melissa K. Rice, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2008    
|                       
|/s/ Melissa K. Rice    
|Melissa K. Rice,       
|Chief Executive Officer
STATE EX REL. Richard LAY v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0549

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Lay v. State, 14-2549 (La. 11/6/15), 181 So.3d 693.

WEIMER, J., recused.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_faqs(4)
              - science_science(189)
              - products_data(130)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2007)
              - products_software(7)
              - products_web_tools(8)
              - multimedia_audio(82)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(78)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(4)
              - multimedia_before_after(5)
              - multimedia_image(196)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(145)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141772(4)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(22)
              - multimedia_image-141776(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(229)
              - multimedia_video-149194(87)
              - multimedia_video-149195(54)
              - multimedia_video-149196(16)
              - multimedia_video-149197(15)
              - multimedia_video-149198(13)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(10)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149222(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(5)
              - news_news-149249(2)
              - news_news-149250(7)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(16)

## By Location

              - south carolina(1)

## By Year

Infographics        March 19, 2024        PFAS Fate Transport Diagram

Infographics        October 1, 2023        #ClimateCryptids: Bigfoot

Infographics        November 15, 2022        Ox Bel Ha Infographic - Spanish version

Infographics        November 15, 2022        Ox Bel Ha Infographic - English Version

Podcasts        June 10, 2012        USGS CoreCast: Landslide Hazards

Podcasts        July 27, 2011        Climate Connections: Questions from North and South Carolina
U

.. Department

of ransportatlon Fe eral Aviation A ministration 

### N~V 1 3 2014 Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 

# U:nneth P. Quinn Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2 00N Street, NW ashington, DC 20037
I Dear Mr. Quinn: T~· ank you for your letter regarding the Federal ~viation A~ministration's (FAA) .Public Meeting fo Proposal to Consider the Impact ofOne Engme Inoperative (OEI) Procedures inPart 77 H ard Determinations. This letter isprovided inresponse to several issues you raised in your letter.

, i The FAA published the notice ofproposed policy andrequest for comment inthe Federal R' gister on April 28, 2014, regarding anew policy that would consider the impact ofproposed st ctures on OEI procedures during the aeronautical study process conducted under existing 14 C Rpart 77 criteria (79 FR 23300). Additionally, the FAA held an online meeting on June 25, 2 14, where participants were invited to partake inthe meeting by submitting questions re arding this policy via an online tool. DEing the meeting, the FAA presented a slideshow to further explain the proposed policy and re eived questions from participants concerning theproposal. The FAA received numerous q estions and responded to questions that sought clarification ofthe proposal. However, the F A also received anumber ofsubstantive comments that went beyond clarifying the proposal warranted further consideration bythe agency in conjunction with the written comments su mitted to the docket. The FAA did indicate during the meeting that itwould not be able to re pond to substantive comments given the open comment period. The FAA offered responses to the extent possible but also advised that specific questions/issues could not be addressed at th ttime and that those questions would be included inthe docket and addressed with all the p lie comments. The FAA continues to consider the issues raised bythe commenters while de ermining future steps with respect to the proposed policy. Your letter and acopy ofthis re ponse have been included inthe docket for consideration. THeFAA is also inthe process ofposting asummary ofcomments received inthe docket, as w~ll as the list of attendees to the online meeting. I
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Park Place Energy Inc. - Exhibit 10.1






AMENDING AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is dated effective July 4, 2007

AMONG:

PARK PLACE ENERGY INC.

(“Park Place”)

OF THE FIRST PART

AND:

ST ONLINE CORP.

(“ST”)

OF THE SECOND PART

AND:

0794403 B.C. Ltd.

(“Subco”)

OF THE THIRD PART

WHEREAS:

(A)                            
The parties hereto entered into a Business Combination Agreement (the ”Business
Condition Agreement”) dated for reference the 22nd day of June,
2007;

(B)                            
The parties hereto now desire to enter into this Amending Agreement so as to
amend the Business Combination Agreement as provided for herein.

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that for good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agrees as follows:

1.               
              
In this Agreement capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meaning given to them in the Business Combination Agreement;

2.                  
            The Business
Combination Agreement be and is hereby amended by deleting Section 2.1 (a) and
replacing it with the following:




- 2 -

“ST shall take such steps or shall be
necessary in advance of the Amalgamation to effect the subdivision of its
current issued and outstanding shares on a 12:1 basis and to change its name to
Park Place Energy Corp.”; and

3.                              The
Business Combination Agreement, as amended by this Amending Agreement, continues
in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by
the parties hereto on the day and year first above written.


PARK PLACE ENERGY INC. 


Per:  /s/ David Stadnyk,

         by his authorized
attorney, David
Cowan                  
        
Authorized Signatory


ST ONLINE CORP.


Per:   /s/ Scott
Pedersen                                                         
        
Authorized Signatory

 

0794403 B.C. LTD.


Per:   /s/ Scott
Pedersen                                                          
        
Authorized Signatory
# C_2020035EN.01000301.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/3

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2020/C 35/03)

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, B-1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Wire rod | The People’s Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1846 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of wire rod originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
  (OJ L 268, 15.10.2015, p. 9) | 16 October 2020 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Wire rod

The People’s Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1846 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of wire rod originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009

(OJ L 268, 15.10.2015, p. 9)

16 October 2020

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column

---
Table of Contents


Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF
SUBSIDIARIES                                                Banco de Chile

|1. | Banchile Administradora General de Fondos S.A.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------
|2. | Banchile Factoring S.A.                       
|3. | Banchile Corredores de Seguros Limitada       
|4. | Banchile Corredores de Bolsa S.A.             
|5. | Banchile Asesoria Financiera S.A.             
|6. | Banchile Securitizadora S.A.                  
|7. | Promarket S.A.                                
|8. | Socofin S.A.                                  

All of the
subsidiaries have their jurisdiction of incorporation in the Republic of Chile.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Bonnie L. McNamara, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of id-Confirm, Inc. for the nine months ended March 31, 2006 (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 id-Confirm, Inc.

Date: May 15, 2006

/s/ Bonnie L. McNamara                  

Bonnie L. McNamara 

Chief Financial Officer 

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
# C_2020122EN.01000301.xml

| 15.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/3

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
   (1)

  )

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 122/03)

Decisions partially granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2020) 2073 | 1 April 2020 | Potassium dichromate
  EC No 231-906-6, CAS No 7778-50-9 | Brenntag UK Ltd., Green Lane LS19 7XX Leeds, United Kingdom | REACH/20/3/0 | Use in formulation of mixtures intended exclusively for use REACH/20/3/1 | 21 September 2024 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies. |
| REACH/20/3/1 | Use for surface treatment of metals (such as aluminium, steel, zinc, magnesium, titanium, alloys), composites and sealings of anodic films for the aerospace sector in the surface treatment processes in which any of the key functionalities listed in the Annex is required | | |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2020) 2073

1 April 2020

Potassium dichromate

EC No 231-906-6, CAS No 7778-50-9

Brenntag UK Ltd., Green Lane LS19 7XX Leeds, United Kingdom

REACH/20/3/0

Use in formulation of mixtures intended exclusively for use REACH/20/3/1

21 September 2024

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

REACH/20/3/1

Use for surface treatment of metals (such as aluminium, steel, zinc, magnesium, titanium, alloys), composites and sealings of anodic films for the aerospace sector in the surface treatment processes in which any of the key functionalities listed in the Annex is required

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

---
71

^

LN 

### Dew 1a Cofa$> CWa^fvoA X tov/ft oflwrnb Qcuot/ -. TgXO^ ^fencb.nt^;;!^^ in fimlra. \b~Tir& HonofaGieTuioe, of 8&Td CoufS-: 

### Coffl?S onuhfb^r} HarQgS C-hg^rmg Qeftytfaft 

## £pg^ Tn?) Orfrlrm rO honing. anfi-^Ccy^ £btj?y, mows nndv,:9n->sR -fors cojPHd

.StateOfigXQfvQH ftF J-H2. Sfc^eS (ATftflBSpS, to re-Hetin-Wcm rryrnan-nq • or rxgaPSStYnQ 

### fo -hoe. Uteres vtoirrfifo on-ft/oroffihtor Stovhgmgms "fe tn£?ifxv 6v 6cestinn^iiTu^r 

## -feviovo^QQ -facts g^T"^F

Arty fejCdcJt ofy>nbr Cfi^npyl ArCP^T MovCh Sfa M ^re defe^nt -M<P. -frz FtinrA ~fo 

### •te&riw To h^/Her §5S Any. Su^^an ofStofernm^^t--f-bef& are ofr>er CoS^ holaJ oemlro ooTnRtk "hog, r^fendo/rV FILEBriN 1STCOURTOFAPPEALS HOUSTON. IbXAS JUN -S2°15

CLERK"0P/T/jfT

CHHISTQPHjRH



### zs presence 

### Th^gxrstQPoeDFoiny rteoffi c3n£i£ifaffrivfcfeQCft TnCKdJm any rtgnS -firm-fae OlietfH Car (y^hTCK ^f&ndonj- alleged 

# Af custody iTS Qsdfe|UQl€\y estebi^vfe-i he Stq^mzov 6y -fne pfo^qjfAp tefrsa


### C& 6toaJ5e^TH ij^ytR .CcgfE^ pca^flirtvhn in q gC^OjUaf) u/ftng5& uvhohofi .. . i ... — -- . ,.. - . • -.,,... - - Jafftfrtfj 

### Tip, [<fo ;g, Of C aMTCFTUjpt?. <Sl7^7F/ffS ff jTx^gajfor -frvaft Sicx-V^ UJvSh^J&n^jg 

## \\bS>eeufton ;WffiCsV o>v^x>CV^^>€
4DFFlC.E OF T.HE ~ATTORNEV GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN \
January 30, 1939



### Ron. Chas. ?I.

Yartin County ALldit.or B!arshall,

Texas Dear ?Zr.

Kartin:

r the year of
has been 

### recsiv

12, 1934, Son, Julius F. 

### Frankl, Assis,- 1, held thst the County Coz~Pssionora' " authorityto pay the preaim on the offiounty Treasurer. Artiolc~S991Of the RcrtsedCivil Stetut%?s of Texas aut.hozizad

oertsin ofPicarsto dedlwt th.2 cost of ths proniurr

on th4fr bonds from the fees of their various offices but this stnt,ute had cnu&ra%.edin ArtIcls 3833, 

### epplicntionor~ly to the officers 

### &vi,o3d Civil Statutes,a:nonz which the office of CountyTreanurerdoes not cppczr.Iion. Chas. R. Xartln, January 33, 1939, Faze 2

tbo absmce of statutory author:tp aut5orizin:'thu CmZliSSlO%3r3’ Court t0 ::akoSUCh >aj?Eilt3, gal: arc;rt:33octfully advi3ed t?lotit 13 Our opinion tbnt fh:: Com!issionors* Court does zot kve the autiority to ?cy pmzliur:: ox offlcial surety bond of the Go!:aty Crea3urer for the year of 

### 1936. T?.eopinion hcratofore rendered by Zen. Joe J. Alsup, Az3istant Attomcy.Gem.urol, referred to nbovs, is hereby expressly overruled.

The opinion of Xon. Julius F. Fraoki, Assistant Attorney .Genorol,rcferrod to above, is hereby expressly .approved a?ldconfirned-.

Trustinr,that the foregoing amwers your inquiry,



### AF'PROVXI: