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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquakes

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(14)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(3)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(4)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - connect_locations(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(49)
              - other_basic-37(1)
              - other_basic-42(25)

## By Location

              - alaska(5)
              - california(22)
              - (-)colorado(1)
              - hawaii(16)
              - idaho(14)
              - montana(19)
              - oregon(4)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south dakota(3)
              - utah(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(12)
              - wyoming(56)

## By Year

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Featured Films and Shorts        October 2, 2020        May the Quartz Be With You
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, James R Morris, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GlobalSCAPE, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly 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) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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 quarterly report based on suchevaluation; and 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting 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 control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 12, 2011
STATE EX REL. Roger ANCALADE v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1584

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 14, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, the application is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         389,501
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               426,481
<PP&E>                                          36,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,950)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,415,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,403
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,383,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,415,138
<SALES>                                        245,051
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               245,051
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  509,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (256,448)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (253,448)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (253,448)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.008)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.008)


</TABLE>
Danielle A. EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-993

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed November 2, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this *Anders*1 appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentence but remand for correction of a scrivener's error in the judgment and order of probation. Danielle A. Evans filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct a sentencing error, noting that count IV of the judgment and order of probation reflects that she was charged and convicted of fleeing to elude a law enforcement officer at high speed or with wanton disregard when she was actually charged and convicted of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer causing injury or damage. The trial court granted the motion and directed the clerk of court to reflect the correct offense in count IV of the judgment and order of probation. However, the corrected documents continue to reflect the scrivener's error. We remand with directions to the trial court to correct the judgment and order of probation. *See**King v. State*, 201 So.3d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming *Anders* appeal but remanding for correction of scrivener's error).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED for correction of scrivener's errors.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

1

*Anders v. California*, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Eugene C. BRITT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2365

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 16, 2018

Eugene C. Britt, South Bay, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 18, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 509 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-644, K2025-643.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-29840 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6056

ROY W. ARROWOOD, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

ROBERT H. MAUNEY, Warden; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney 

General of the State of South Carolina; WARDEN, Northside 

Correctional Institution, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:06-cv-02158-TLW) 

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit 

Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Roy W. Arrowood, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Roy W. Arrowood seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and 

the district court’s order denying his motion for 

reconsideration filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. These orders 

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Arrowood 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

2 
3 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Each of the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of The Princeton Review, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that:



| | 1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 7, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /S/ MICHAEL J. PERIK                               
|                  |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Michael J. Perik                                   
|                  |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer              
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 7, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /S/ STEPHEN C. RICHARDS                            
|                  |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Stephen C. Richards                                
|                  |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Princeton Review, Inc. and will be
retained by The Princeton Review, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Tremaine Latroy BAILEMZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0910

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The portion of the petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the postconviction court to rule on motions for postconviction relief filed on or about August 8, August 23, October 26, and December 5, 2017, is denied without prejudice because it appears that proceedings in the circuit court relating to those motions are progressing. The portion of the petition seeking to compel a ruling on a November 28, 2017, motion for discharge is denied as moot. To the extent that Petitioner seeks to compel the circuit court to rule on any additional motions, Petitioner must raises those issues in a new petition for writ of mandamus. Petitioner's request for oral argument, motions for relief, motion for extension of time, and motions to correct the record are denied as moot. Petitioner's motion to dismiss and motion for appointment of counsel for postconviction proceedings are denied without prejudice to Petitioner filing those motions in the circuit court.

BLACK, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
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 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 Accounting 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 Accounting Officer
Terrance HARTLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1211

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 24, 2018

Terrance Hartley, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Ray, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Denis LAURENT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0968

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

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)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MediciNova, Inc. (the Company) for the
period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shintaro Asako, CPA, as 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 to my knowledge:

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

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



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 24, 2010 |  | /s/ Shintaro Asako     
|                     |  | Shintaro Asako, CPA    
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REZA NAGAHI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-17320

D.C. No. 5:07-cv-06268-JF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 10, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District

Judge.** 

The State defendants have advised the court that “[a]lthough this case has a

long and complex history, the result in this Court should be short and simple: a

FILED

JUL 11 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable William K. Sessions III, District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
remand to the District Court so that Petitioner Reza Nagahi might be provided with

the two possible forms of relief to which he may be eligible: the appropriate

measure of Additional Trade Readjustment Allowance monetary benefits to which

he is entitled by statute, and a written notification regarding his application for

Remedial Education benefits.” Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for

further proceedings in accordance with the above. 

2