alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12652]



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


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Information Collection Under OMB Review: Appeal to Board of 
Veteran's Appeals, VA Form 9; Withdrawal of Services by a 
Representative; Fee Agreement; Motion for Review of Expenses; Requests 
for Changes in Hearing Date; and Motion for Reconsideration

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Veterans Affairs has submitted OMB for following 
proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This document lists the 
following information: (1) The title of the information collection, and 
the Department form number(s), if applicable; (2) a description of the 
need and its use; (3) who will be required or asked to respond; (4) an 
estimate of the total annual reporting hours, and recordkeeping burden, 
if applicable; (5) the estimated average burden hours per respondent; 
(6) the frequency of response; and (7) an estimated number of 
respondents.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed information collection and supporting 
documents may be obtained from Ron Taylor, Information Management 
Service (045A4), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 
523-3412.
    Comments and questions about the items on the list should be 
directed to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Joseph Lackey, NEOB, Room 3002, 
Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316. Do not send requests for benefits 
to this address.

DATES: Comments on the information collection should be directed to the 
OMB Desk Officer by no later than June 23, 1995.

    Dated: May 15, 1995.

    By direction of the Secretary:
Donald L. Neilson,
Director, Information Management Service.

Reinstatement

1. Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, VA Form 9; Withdrawal of 
Services by a Representative; Fee Agreement; Motion for Review of 
Expenses; Requests for Changes in Hearing Date; and Motion for 
Reconsideration.
2. The information collection is judicial in nature and is required in 
processing appeals from denial of claims for VA benefits and in 
regulation of representatives' fees.
3. Individuals or households.
4. 51,598 hours.
5. Estimate of Burden Hour Per Respondent: 58 minutes (Average).
    a. Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals--1 hour.
    b. Withdrawal of Services by a Representative--30 minutes.
    c. Fee Agreement--6 minutes (basic filing); 4 hours (motion 
filing).
    d. Requests for Changes in Hearing Date--10 minutes (basic 
request); 1 hour (requests requiring preparation of a motion).
    e. Motion for Review of Expenses--4 hours.
6. On occasion.
7. 53,397 responses.

[FR Doc. 95-12652 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Vincent D. PARAGANO.

No. D-2726.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Vincent D. Paragano, of Jersey City, New Jersey, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Brad Keith SIGMON, petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA.

No. 13-6379.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                        Certification of CEO 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 on Form 10Q of Information Resources,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Joseph P. Durrett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



/s/ Joseph P. Durrett
------------------------------------
Joseph P. Durrett
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2002


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-5912
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRY SANDERS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-93-34-MU) Submitted: May 27, 1997 Decided: June 12, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Sanders appeals from his conviction upon a guilty pleato conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute and distributing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). He raises several ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). However, Sanders's ineffective assistance claims fail because his counsel's deficient performance does not plainly appear on the face of the record. See United States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991). The appropriate avenue for relief is a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). Further, to the extent that Sanders complains of counsel's failure to note an appeal, Sanders's filing of a notice of appeal on his own behalf precludes a finding of prejudice based on retained counsel's failure to do so. Accordingly, we affirm Sanders's conviction. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the Annual Report onForm 10-K of Vringo, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Ellen Cohl, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 andresults of operations of the Company. 

Date: March 31, 2011
Schedule



 EXHIBIT 10p4 
  
 Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, among Fortune Brands, Inc. (“Fortune”) and each of the following persons, to the Agreement and
Amendments thereto constituting Exhibits 10p1, 10p2 and 10p3 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fortune for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003. 
  
 Name 
  
 Mark A. Roche
[Cite as State v. Cummings, 2022-Ohio-1800.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

BRIAN J. CUMMINGS,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2021-12-157

D E C I S I O N

 5/31/2022

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. CR 2020 10 1356

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John Heinkel, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Lorraine M. Search, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Brian J. Cummings, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript 

of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and 

upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.
Butler CA2021-12-157

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of 

the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason 

that it is wholly frivolous.

PIPER, P.J., S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
   /s/ Kambiz HooshmandKambiz HooshmandPresident and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CAWAJALIN KAVIN MCNEIL, a/k/a WaWa,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00198-BR-1; 5:16-cv-00419-BR)

Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 13, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cawajalin Kavin McNeil, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cawajalin Kavin McNeil seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McNeil 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 before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


      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 Sabine Royalty Trust (the "Trust") on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the
Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its 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
Trust.



                                   BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
                                   SABINE ROYALTY TRUST

                                   By: /s/ Ron E. Hooper
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Ron E. Hooper,
                                       Senior Vice President, Royalty Management

Date: May 6, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12914]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Research, Evaluation and Dissemination; 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Research, Evaluation and 
Dissemination.
    Date and Time: June 15, 1995; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., June 16, 
1995; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Location: Rooms 310, 320, 360, Arlington Rennaissance Hotel, 950 
North Stafford Street, Arlington, VA 22203.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Nora Sabelli, Program Director, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Room 855, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 306-1651.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals and provide advice and 
recommendations as part of the selection process for proposals 
submitted to the Networking Infrastructure for Education Program.
    Reason for Closing: Because the proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
financial data, such as salaries; and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with proposals, the meetings are 
closed to the public. These matters are within exemptions (4) and 
(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 22, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12914 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

PAUL FLETCHER, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CV-231-RL-PRC

)

HOEPPNER WAGNER & EVANS, LLP and )

WAYNE GOLOMB, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to

Respond to Defendant Golomb’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 166], filed by pro se Plaintiff

Paul Fletcher on April 3, 2017. Defendant Wayne Golomb filed a response on April 10, 2017, and

Plaintiff filed a reply on April 20, 2017.

On January 9, 2017, Defendant Wayne Golomb filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF

137). A Notice to Pro Se Litigant was sent to Plaintiff on January 19, 2017.

On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting additional time to respond to the

Motion for Summary Judgment pending a ruling on a motion that was pending at the time in which

he requested that discovery be reopened. On February 16, 2017, the Court stayed the deadline for

Plaintiff to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment until the Court ruled on his pending

motion to reopen discovery.

On March 8, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery and reset the

deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment to April 10, 2017. (ECF 160).

On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Court’s March 8, 2017 Order pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). 
On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings, asking the Court to stay the

proceedings in this case until a related case in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Indiana is transferred to this district and consolidated with this matter.

On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, asking the Court to stay the deadline to

respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment pending a ruling by the presiding judge on his March

27, 2017 Objection and pending a ruling on his April 3, 2017 Motion to Stay Proceedings.

On April 4, 2017, the Court took the instant motion under advisement and temporarily stayed

the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment pending a ruling on the

instant motion.

On April 25, 2017, Judge Rudy Lozano overruled Plaintiff’s Objection to the March 8, 2017

Order. On April 26, 2017, the Court denied the Motion to Stay Proceedings. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Second Motion for

Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant Golomb’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 166].

The Court ORDERS that the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Wayne

Golomb’s Motion for Summary Judgment is reset to May 26, 2017.

SO ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2017.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

cc: Paul Fletcher, Plaintiff, pro se

2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen United StatesCourthouse

 Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

ORDER: Circuit Rule 33 - Briefing

October 19, 2016

No. 16-3665

AARON CARSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants

and 

RONALD PAULSIN, 

Intervening Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, 

Defendant - Appellee

 Originating Case Information:

 District Court No: 2:14-cv-00117-PRC

Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division

Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 33, briefing in this appeal shall proceed as follows:

1. The brief and required short appendix of the appellants will be due by 

December 9, 2016.

2. The brief of the appellee will be due by January 9, 2017.

3. The reply brief of the appellants, if any, will be due by January 23, 2017.

Important Scheduling Notice !

Notices of hearing for particular appeals are mailed shortly before the date of oral argument. Criminal appeals are

scheduled shortly after the filing of the appellant's main brief; civil appeals after the filing of the appellee's brief. If you

foresee that you will be unavailable during a period in which your particular appeal might be scheduled, please write the

clerk advising him of the time period and the reason for such unavailability. Session data is located at

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/cal/calendar.pdf. Once an appeal is formally scheduled for a certain date, it is very difficult

to have the setting changed. See Circuit Rule 34(e).

Case: 16-3665 Document: 4 Filed: 10/19/2016 Pages: 1

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00117-PRC document 62 filed 10/19/16 page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 11.0

                             SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                  (unaudited)

                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)

PRIMARY
-------
                                                           Three Months Ended
                                                           ------------------
                                                       October 1,     October 2,
                                                          1995           1994
                                                       ----------     ----------

     Net income ...................................     $84,696        $38,427
                                                        =======        =======
     Weighted average common shares
             outstanding ..........................      94,948         94,501

     Common-equivalent shares attributable to
             stock options and warrants ...........       4,714          1,166
                                                        -------        -------
     Total common and common-equivalent
             shares outstanding ...................      99,662         95,667
                                                        =======        =======
     Net income per common and
             common-equivalent share ..............     $  0.85        $  0.40
                                                        =======        =======


<PAGE>


                                                        EXHIBIT 11.0 (continued)

                             SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                  (unaudited)

                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)

FULLY DILUTED
-------
                                                           Three Months Ended
                                                           ------------------
                                                       October 1,     October 2,
                                                          1995           1994
                                                       ----------     ----------

     Net income ...................................     $84,696        $38,427
                                                        =======        =======
     Weighted average common shares
             outstanding ..........................      94,948         94,501

     Common-equivalent shares attributable to
             stock options and warrants ............      4,890          1,378
                                                        -------        -------
     Total common and common-equivalent
             shares outstanding ....................     99,838         95,879
                                                        =======        =======
     Net income per common and
             common-equivalent share $ .............    $  0.85        $  0.40
                                                        =======        =======