alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7878

RAY WASHINGTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00134-JBF) Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray Washington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ray Washington, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 Washington 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 14.17 April 13, 2005 Companhia Vale do Rio Doce
Avenida Graça Aranha, No. 26
20030-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ
Brazil Re:
    
    Letter of Consent
9416.00
 Gentlemen: Pincock Allen & Holt, Inc. (PAH) hereby consents to being named in the Annual Report on Form 20-F
of Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD) and Vale Overseas Limited for the year ended December 31,
2004. This consent in granted in reference to PAHs review of CVRDs mineral reserves as of
December 31, 2004, which was conducted in March and April 2005. Sincerely, Pincock Allen & Holt, Inc. /s/ Richard J. Lambert, P.E.Richard J. Lambert, P.E.
Manager, Mine Engineering
and Geological Services
EXHIBIT 11.1


        GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
            Computation of Earnings per Common Share
                                
              (In thousands, except per share data)
                           (Unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Quarter ended
                                                     March 31,
                                                --------------------
                                                  1997       1996
                                                --------   --------
<S>                                             <C>        <C>
Net income applicable to common shares          $ 40,030   $  6,077
                                                ========   ========                
Shares:                                                            
   Average shares issued and outstanding (after                       
   giving effect to the Recapitalization)         73,920     65,403
                                                                   
   Exercise of certain stock options with the                         
   Offering                                            -      3,949
                                                                   
   Incremental shares applicable to stock options                     
   outstanding after the exercise of certain                          
   stock options with the Offering                 4,637      4,624

   Shares issued pursuant to the Offering              -      4,559
                                                --------    --------
Weighted average common and common equivalent
shares outstanding                                78,557     78,535
                                                ========    ========
                                                                   
Net income per common and common equivalent                        
share                                           $    .51   $    .08
                                                ========    ========
</TABLE>
Note:  Shares and stock options issued prior to October 16,
       1996, date of the Offering (see Note 10 to the
       consolidated financial statements included in the 1996
       Annual Report to Stockholders) are treated as outstanding
       for all reported periods.
# C_2019383EN.01004001.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/40

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 2 August 2019 — Criminal proceedings against A***** and further unknown perpetrators

(Case C-584/19)

(2019/C 383/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatsanwaltschaft Wien

Accused: A***** and further unknown perpetrators

Other parties: Staatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

Question referred

Are the terms ‘judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order (1) in criminal matters and ‘public prosecutor’ within the meaning of Article 2(c)(i) of the aforementioned Directive to be interpreted as also including the public prosecutor’s offices of a Member State which are exposed to the risk of being directly or indirectly subject to orders or individual instructions from the executive, such as the Senator of Justice in Hamburg, in the context of the adoption of a decision on the issuance of a European investigation order?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 130, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Howard Root, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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/ Howard RootHoward RootChief Executive OfficerApril 17, 2008




---
# C_2020077EN.01001202.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/12

---

Appeal brought on 7 June 2019 by All Star CV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 March 2019 in Case T-611/17 All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés

(Case C-461/19 P)

(2020/C 77/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: All Star CV (represented by: S. Malynicz, A. Newnes and A. Artinian, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 30 September 2019, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) found that the appeal was not allowed to proceed.

---
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bi-Optic Ventures Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal period ended February 29, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry Chew, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.

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



June 11, 2012



/s/ Harry Chew

Harry Chew

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)





1
# C_2020054EN.01003001.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Vicenza (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2019 — AV v Minister for Justice and the Italian Republic

(Case C-834/19)

(2020/C 54/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Vicenza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AV

Defendant: Minister for Justice and the Italian Republic

Questions referred

Does the national practice whereby honorary district court judges who work as described [in the order for reference] (as in AV’s case) are excluded from the concept of ‘part-time worker’, as referred to in Clause 2 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1997/81/EC, (1) and from the concept of ‘fixed-term worker’, as referred to in Clause 2 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, (2) constitute an obstacle to the effectiveness of Directives 1997/81/EC and 1999/70/EC?

---

(1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

(2)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

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

No. 96-31253 Conference Calendar

RODNEY C. CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DAVID M. DICKSON, Attorney at Law, Public Defender’s Office, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-3158

- - - - - - - - - - June 18, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rodney C. Curry, Louisiana inmate #180222, appeals the dismissal, without prejudice, as frivolous of his civil rights complaint against his former court-appointed counsel. For the first time on appeal, Curry argues that the defendant conspired with individuals, acting under color of state law, to deprive him of his constitutional rights. We have carefully reviewed theNo. 96-31253 - 2 - appellate record. For essentially the same reasons as relied upon by the district court by adopting the magistrate judge’s report, see Curry v. Dickson , No. 96-3158 (E.D. La. Nov. 18, 1996), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Curry’s conspiracy claim is conclusional and thus, does not amount to plain error. The appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED. We caution Curry that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Curry is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
**EXHIBIT
31.4**
 
 **Certification
Pursuant to Section 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Christine
M. Carriker (HouseRaising Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative
Officer)**
 
 I,
Christine M. Carriker, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 of
HouseRaising, Inc. (“registrant”);
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, the report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation.; and
 
 c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, 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 which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information (all of which do not apply); and
 
 b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls (all of which do
not apply).
  ****Date: March 30,
2005
    By:
    /s/ Christine M.
      CarrikerName: Christine M. CarrikerTitle:  Senior Vice
      President and Chief Administrative Officer
      (Principal
      Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Raymond L. Lawless, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 (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 Companies.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                          
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 24, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    RAYMOND L.
LAWLESS
|                      |  |  |  | Raymond L. Lawless       
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer  

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BERNARDO DIMAS PIVARALGONZALEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71925

Agency No. A099-465-054

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 13, 2014** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Bernardo Dimas Pivaral-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing

his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

MAY 28 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings and de novo questions of law. Cordoba v.

Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny in part and grant in part the

petition for review, and we remand for further proceedings.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Pivaral-Gonzalez’s

CAT claim because he has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured

by the government of Guatemala or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v.

Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

In denying Pivaral-Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,

the agency determined that a group of “small landowners” is not cognizable as a

particular social group. In light of our recent decision in Cordoba, 726 F.3d 1106,

1114 (recognizing landownership may form the basis of a particular social group),

we remand Pivaral-Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims for

further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.

12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

2 09-71925
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14240]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-39-000]


Neptune Regional Transmission System Long Island Power Authority 
v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Establishing Paper Hearing 
Procedures

    On December 31, 2020, Neptune Regional Transmission System, LLC 
(Neptune) and Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) (together, Neptune/
LIPA), pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act 
(FPA),\1\ filed a complaint alleging the assignment of costs pursuant 
to the provisions of the regional cost allocation method included in 
the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Open Access Transmission Tariff 
(Tariff) results in unjust and unreasonable rates. In an order issued 
on June 25, 2021, the Commission found that Neptune/LIPA has raised 
questions of material fact about the 1% de minimis threshold and 
netting provisions of PJM's solution-based DFAX method and whether the 
rates may have become unjust and unreasonable.\2\ The Commission found 
that the record would benefit from further information and established 
paper hearing procedures to develop a further record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e.
    \2\ Neptune Reg'l Transmission Sys., LLC v. PJM Interconnection, 
L.L.C., 175 FERC ] 61,247, at P 29 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested persons who currently are not parties to Docket No. 
EL21-39-000 may submit notices of intervention or motions to intervene, 
as appropriate, within 21 days of the date of the Commission's June 25, 
2021 order establishing paper hearing procedures. The briefing schedule 
described in Ordering Paragraph (D) of the June 25, 2021 order will 
apply to such persons.

    Dated: June 28, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14240 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P