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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1363

AMERICAN MONUMENT FOUNDATION, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRETT LIVINGSTONE STRONG,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

COMMERCIAL MOVING & RIGGING, INCORPORATED;

WILLIAMS EQUIPMENT CORPORATION; WILLIAMS

INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-02-897-A)

Submitted: December 17, 2003 Decided: June 16, 2004

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rachel L. Semanchik, Thomas O. Mason, WILLIAMS MULLEN, McLean,

Virginia, for Appellant. N. Thomas Connally, HOGAN & HARTSON

L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Brett Livingstone Strong appeals from the district

court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

the magistrate judge’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion for

sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Am. Monument Found., LLC v. Strong, No. CA-02-897-A

(E.D. Va. filed Feb. 12, 2003; entered Feb. 19, 2003). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          667944
<SECURITIES>                                    218766
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                872368
<PP&E>                                            9939
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (9939)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  938483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            71181
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2015
<OTHER-SE>                                      865287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    938483
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                210936
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 30010
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 180926
<INCOME-TAX>                                     57841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             123085
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    123085
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
Gevonte GWIN, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-8953.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the following certification shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange Act and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, notwithstanding any general incorporation by reference of this Annual Report of Coastal Pacific Mining Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F as filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), into any other document filed with the Commission by the Company.





In connection with the Report, each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his 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.





Dated: August 31, 2012


By:
/s/ Joseph BucciJoseph BucciChief Executive Officer, President, Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
FDIC Advisory Committee on 

Community Banking 

October 26, 2022 

FDIC Office of the Ombudsman Update 
2021 

Annual 

Report 

More Streamlined 

One Year of Activity 

Notable Requests 

OO Update 2 
Services 

and 

Activities 

(2021) 

665 Meetings with Stakeholders 

150 Requests for Information 

36 Confidential Consultations 

15 Liaison Services 

OO Update 3 
PostExamination 

Survey 

Response Rates 

Follow-Up Calls 

Future Enhancements 

OO Update 4 
 

Major 

Topics 

and/or 

Feedback 

(2022) 

Regulatory Burden 

Return to On-site Examinations 

Regulatory Training & 

Communication 

Regulatory Modernization 

OO Update 5 
View the 2021 Annual Report: 

Visit https://www.fdic.gov/about/ombudsman/report/ 

or use the QR code below 

OO Update 6 
Questions 

OO Update 7
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7778

G. GRAY; PETER DAUGHARTY; ALBERT J. NEELEY,

JR.; CHRIS JENKINS; CLARENCE BROWNING; KEVIN

M. BALLANCE; LAWRENCE E. HAYMES; C. MACK LYNN;

GINO L. REID; J. BARCASE; DERRICK L. HAYMES;

T. LEHRER; MICHAEL WAYNE BRETZ; ALEXANDER X;

HENRY FRANK HARLESS; LARRY DEAN; STUART

ADKINS; GARY DEAN DELP; LINDA CARSON LEWIS;

NICHOLE CIOLKOSZ; HELEN FAIRCHILD,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

LLOYD GAITHER; B. HARRIS; BO HAY; G. WALDON

MCKINNON; B. LIGHT; L. HARRISON; M. MELLY;

JOHN R. LAFLAMME, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-868-R)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 29, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2
3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Gray, Peter Daugharty, Albert J. Neeley, Jr., Chris Jenkins,

Clarence Browning, Kevin M. Ballance, Lawrence E. Haymes, C. Mack

Lynn, Gino L. Reid, J. Barcase, Derrick L. Haymes, T. Lehrer,

Michael Wayne Bretz, Alexander X, Henry Frank Harless, Larry Dean,

Stuart Adkins, Gary Dean Delp, Linda Carson Lewis, Nichole

Ciolkosz, Helen Fairchild, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's orders denying their

motions for reconsideration of the order denying relief on their 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the

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

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Angelone,

No. CA-96-868-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 19, 1996). We grant Appellant Gray's

motion to expedite the appeal to the extent possible given the

court's busy docket. 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
4
```

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12132]

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

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board has submitted the 
following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office 
of Management and Budget for review and approval.

Summary of Proposal(s)

    (1) Collection title: Appeal under the Railroad Retirement and 
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
    (2) Form(s) submitted: HA-1.
    (3) OMB Number: 3220-0007.
    (4) Exiration date of current OMB clearance: July 31, 1995.
    (5) Type of request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    (6) Respondents: Individuals or households.
    (7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 1,650.
    (8) Total annual responses: 1,650.
    (9) Total annual reporting hours: 549.
    (10) Collection description: Under Section 7(b)(3) of the Railroad 
Retirement Act and Section 5(c) of the Railroad unemployment Insurance 
Act, a person aggrieved by a decision on his or her application for an 
annuity or other benefit has the right to appeal to the RRB. The 
collection provides the means for the appeal action.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Copies of the form and supporting 
documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance 
officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information collection 
should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 
North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, 
Laura Oliven (202-395-7316), Office of management and Budget, Room 
10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12132 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
```
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Sierra Ventures, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I,
Ian Jackson, 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.



Date: September 8, 2009

/s/    
 Ian Jackson

Ian Jackson Chief Financial
Officer

---
Dennis ETTLIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-9994.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until July 15, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
 

✘

 

Protect people from getting sick. Always wear gloves or use 



utensils when handling ready-to-eat foods.

If you wear gloves or use utensils when handling ready-to-eat 

foods, you keep the food and your customers safe.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         139,752
<SECURITIES>                                       600
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,794
<PP&E>                                       4,001,642
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,661,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,525,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,837
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,511,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,525,064
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               363,507
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                295,447
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            295,447
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   295,447
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    33.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    33.42
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22052-22053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11023]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices

[[Page 22053]] ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Working Group B (Microelectronics) of the DoD Advisory Group 
on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Thursday and Friday May 11-12, 
1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research 
Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Warner Kramer, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal 
Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology, to the Director Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), 
and through the DDR&E, to the Director Advanced Research Projects 
Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an 
effective research and development program in the field of electron 
devices.
    The Working Group B meeting will be limited to review of research 
and development programs which the military proposes to initiate with 
industry, universities or in their laboratories. The microelectronics 
area includes such programs on semiconductor materials, integrated 
circuits, charge coupled devices and memories. The review will include 
classified program details throughout.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended, 
(5 U.S.C. App II sec. 10(d) (1988)), it has been determined that this 
Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) 
(1988), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the 
public.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-11023 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ANTHONY PARKER )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 2:13 CV 420

)

U.G.N. INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant U.G.N. Inc’s (“defendant”) motion to

dismiss plaintiff Anthony Parker’s (“plaintiff”) complaint. (DE # 9.) Plaintiff has filed a

response (DE ## 15, 16) and defendant has filed a reply (DE # 17). For the following

reasons, that motion is granted in part and denied in part. 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against due to his race

and age while employed by defendant. (DE # 1.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(ADEA). (DE # 1 at 2.) In its motion to dismiss, defendant argues that plaintiff’s federal

employment discrimination claims should be dismissed because he did not file this suit

within 90 days of receiving his right to sue letter from the EEOC. (DE # 10 at 3.) 

“A statute of limitations provides an affirmative defense, and a plaintiff is not

required to plead facts in the complaint to anticipate and defeat affirmative

defenses.”Independent Trust Corp. v. Stewart Info. Serv. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 935 (7th Cir.

2012). “But when a plaintiff’s complaint nonetheless sets out all of the elements of an
affirmative defense, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate.” Id.; see also Jay E.

Hayden Found. v. First Neighbor Bank, N.A., 610 F.3d 382, 383 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Although the

statute of limitations is an affirmative defense to liability and so ordinarily must be

pleaded and proved by the defendant, if it is plain from the complaint that the defense is

indeed a bar to the suit dismissal is proper without further pleading.”). Here, the

allegations in plaintiff’s complaint do not establish that he failed to timely file his suit,

and defendant’s motion cannot be granted on this ground. Defendant makes no other

argument regarding plaintiff’s federal employment discrimination claims, and therefore,

defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied as it relates to these claims. 

Plaintiff also brings a state law claim against defendant for the denial of

unemployment benefits. (DE # 1 at 2.) As defendant points out in its reply brief, however,

plaintiff appears to have abandoned this claim. (DE # 17 at 3-4.) In his response brief,

plaintiff states that he “[i]s not asking for unemployment benefit [sic] in complaint. The

Plaintiff received unemployment benefits on March 2013 [sic].” (DE # 16 at 5.) Thus,

defendant’s motion to dismiss will be granted to the extent that plaintiff’s complaint

asserts a claim seeking unemployment benefits under state law.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss (DE # 9) is GRANTED as

it relates to plaintiff’s state law claim for unemployment benefits and DENIED as it

relates to plaintiff’s federal employment discrimination claims. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: August 6, 2014

s/James T. Moody________________

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Exhibit
32.1





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION





I,
Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Chief Executive Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





(1) the
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.





Dated:
May 15, 2009


By:
              /s/ Jeffrey F. O'DonnellJeffrey
      F. O'DonnellChief
      Executive Officer





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section
906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting
the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PhotoMedex, Inc.
and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


E-32.1
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 1 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 2 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 3 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 4 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 5 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 6 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 7 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 8 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 9 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 10 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 11 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 12 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 13 of 14
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00036-DRL-APR document 128 filed 12/28/16 page 14 of 14
Phil A. HUGHES, petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

No. 12-9506.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 30, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Edward Paul CELESTINE, petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

No. 12-9321.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

*2384Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.