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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1407

BILLY M. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (5:14-cv-03805-JMC)

Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 28, 2016

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, METCALFE & ATKINSON, LLC, Greenville, 

South Carolina; Timothy Clardy, THE DENNISON LAW FIRM, PC, 

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting 

Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas, Acting Supervisory 

Attorney, Sandra Romagnole, Assistant Regional Counsel, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Beth Drake, Acting United States 

Attorney, Barbara Bowens, Chief, Civil Division, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Thompson appeals the district court’s order adopting 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the 

Commissioner’s denial of Thompson’s application for disability 

insurance benefits. Our review of the Commissioner’s 

determination is limited to evaluating whether the correct law 

was applied and whether the findings are supported by 

substantial evidence. Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 

F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence means such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 

(4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In 

conducting this analysis, we may not “reweigh conflicting 

evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our 

judgment for that of the [administrative law judge].” 

Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Within this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the 

record and the parties’ submissions and discern no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Thompson v. Colvin, No. 5:14-cv-03805-JMC (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 

2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
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 Fisher Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Joseph L. Lovejoy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 11, 2009



/s/ Joseph L. LovejoyJoseph L. LovejoySenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
VII

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 167

For the relief of Alfredo Tolentino of Honolulu, Hawaii.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

For the relief of Alfredo Tolentino of Honolulu, Hawaii.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 8337(b)

4 of title 5, United States Code, Alfredo Tolentino of Hono5 lulu, Hawaii may file an application no later than 60 days

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act with the Office

7 of Personnel Management for a claim of disability retire8 ment under the provisions of such section.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                      <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUL-31-1998              JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            AUG-01-1998              AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-31-1998              OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          4,122                    5,908
<SECURITIES>                                        0                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,349                    7,771
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0                    2,377
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,301                   17,083
<PP&E>                                              0                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,377                   30,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,774                    5,394
<BONDS>                                             0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                        0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                        0
<COMMON>                                            8                        8
<OTHER-SE>                                     24,820                   24,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,377                   30,577
<SALES>                                         9,222                    4,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                9,222                    4,140
<CGS>                                           6,934                    3,155
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,085                    1,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (70)                     (51)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  311                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 32                      434
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (70)                  (1,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (70)                  (1,340)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                        0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                        0
<CHANGES>                                           0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (70)                  (1,340)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.01)                    (.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.01)                    (.81)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

RONNIE VANCE SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HSBC BANK, 

Defendant. 

SIMON, District Judge: 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

3:15-CV-264-PK 

OPINION AND 

ORDER 

Plaintiff pro se Ronnie Vance Smith filed this action in Jonna pauper is against defendant 

HSBC Bank1 on Februmy 13, 2015. On February 24, 2015, noting that it was entirely unclear 

1 By and through his complaint (#2), his motion (#3) for temporaty restraining order, and 

his so-styled notice ( #4) of pendency of action, Smith identifies the defendant( s) in his action as 

"HSBC Bank et al.," but nowhere identifies any defendant other than HSBC Bank. In his 

application to proceed informa pauperis, where directed to "Enter full name of ALL 

defendant(s)" Smith listed only HSBC Bank as a defendant. On that basis, I conclude that HSBC 

Bank is the sole named defendant in this action. 

Case 3:15-cv-00264-PK Document 18 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 3
what claim or claims Smith intended to bring against the defendant, Judge Papak ordered Smith 

to show cause within thhiy days why his action should not be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim, and in the alternative to amend his complaint to clearly state one or more claims. On 

March 13, 2015, Judge Papak granted Smith's motion for extension of time to amend his 

pleading, ordering that Smith file his amended complaint on or before May 12, 2015. On May 

12, 2015, Judge Papak granted Smith's second motion for extension of time to amend his 

pleading, ordering that Smith file his amended complaint on or before June 12, 2015. That latter 

deadline has now passed, and the court has received no response to Judge Papak's order to show 

cause. 

In connection with proceedings in Jonna pauperis such as this, the district courts are 

obliged to dismiss sua sponte actions failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted: 

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, 

the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-

* * * 

(B) the action ... 

* * * 

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted .... 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because it is not possible to dete1mine from Smith's allegations what 

claim or claims Smith may intend to state, or indeed that Smith has any valid claim that may lie 

against the named defendant, his action is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Section 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Moreover, Smith has failed to respond to Judge Papak's order to show cause 

within the time allotted for so doing. For the reasons discussed in Judge Papak's order (#8) to 

show cause, Smith's action is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 3:15-cv-00264-PK Document 18 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 3
CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set fo1th above, Smith's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED this 24th day of June, 2015. 

~~ Honorable Michael Simon 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00264-PK Document 18 Filed 06/24/15 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1

Holiday RV Superstores of South Carolina, Inc. is a subsidiary of the
Registrant. This subsidiary, which is wholly owned by Registrant, was
incorporated under the Laws of the State of South Carolina and is in good
standing. The subsidiary does business under the name of Holiday RV Superstores
and Holiday RV Superstores of South Carolina, Inc.

Holiday RV Superstores West, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Registrant, incorporated in the State of California and is in good standing. The
Subsidiary does business under the names of Holiday RV Superstores and Holiday
RV Superstores West, Inc.

Holiday RV Superstores of New Mexico, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Registrant. This subsidiary was incorporated under the laws of the State of New
Mexico and is in good standing. This subsidiary does business under the name of
Holiday RV Superstores and Holiday RV Superstores of New Mexico, Inc.

Holiday RV Assurance Service, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Registrant and is incorporated under the laws of Arizona as an insurance agency.

County Line Cars Select, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant
and is incorporate under the laws of Florida and is in good standing.

Little Valley Auto and RV Sales, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Registrant and is incorporated under the laws of West Virginia and is in good
standing.

Hall Enterprises, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant and is
incorporated under the laws of Kentucky and is in good standing.

Recreation USA Insurance, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant and is
incorporated under the laws of Florida and is in good standing.
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
 
 The undersigned officer of Summit Properties Inc., the general partner of Summit Properties Partnership, L.P. (the "Operating Partnership"), hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Operating Partnerships quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
 
 
 Date: August 9, 2004
/S/ Gregg D. AdzemaGregg D. AdzemaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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  of  Synergx  Systems  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Daniel  S.  Tamkin,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  and I, John A.
Poserina, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to
my knowledge, 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/ Daniel S. Tamkin
                                       Daniel S. Tamkin
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Synergx Systems Inc.

December 16, 2005



                                       /s/ John A. Poserina
                                       John A, Poserina
                                       Chief Financial  Officer
                                       Synergx Systems Inc.

December 16, 2005
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11293

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN RODRIQUEZ, 

also known as Juan Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:94-CR-24-ALL-C

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Rodriquez was convicted following a guilty plea of

being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to

35 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term

of supervised release. After his term of supervised release

commenced, Rodriquez violated the conditions of his release,

and he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment following the

revocation of his supervised release. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-11293

-2-

Rodriquez appeals from this sentence, arguing that it is

plainly unreasonable and that the district court erred by failing

to articulate its reasons for imposition of the sentence or its

consideration of the applicable statutory factors in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), including the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the

sentencing guidelines. 

Rodriquez’s sentence was within the statutory maximum and

was not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Mathena,

23 F.3d 87, 93-94 (5th Cir. 1994). Prior to sentencing, the

district court was provided with an explanation of Rodriquez’s

violations, the Supervised Release Violation Report, stating the

sentencing options and updating Rodriquez’s personal history, and

the argument of defense counsel. “Absent a contrary indication

in the record, such evidence implies that the district court was

aware of and considered the § 3553(a) factors.” United States

v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437, 440-42 (5th Cir. 2000). The

district court implicitly considered the necessary factors and,

thus, its failure to state its reasons was not plain error. See

United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930-31 (5th Cir. 2001);

Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d at 441-42.

AFFIRMED.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Research Program Support: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Ames, Iowa National Animal Disease Center Research Program Support People & Locations







Chad  Affeldt
                        Research Program Support

                        




                        
                        Maintenance Mechanic
                        Phone: (515) 337-7714
                        
                        
                        Fax: (515) 337-7149(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT 23

CROWE CHIZEK

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference and use of our report dated February 17, 2000, on the consolidated financial statements of Shoreline Financial Corporation which appears in Shoreline Financial Corporation's Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1999, in Shoreline Financial Corporation's previously filed registration statements for its 1989 Stock Option Plan (Registration No. 33-29052), Dividend Reinvestment Plan (Registration No. 33-34008), 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan
(Registration No. 333-10629) and Stock Incentive Plan of 1996 (Registration No. 333-09819).

| | /s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP
Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------

South Bend, Indiana
March 22, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1576 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1576

   To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive application of 
California State regulations regarding reformulated gasoline in certain 
                        areas within the State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 1998

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive application of 
California State regulations regarding reformulated gasoline in certain 
                        areas within the State.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA REFORMULATED GASOLINE RULES.

    Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(B)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``If any such State that 
has received a waiver under section 209(b)(1) promulgates reformulated 
gasoline rules for any covered area of the State (as defined in 
subsection (k)(10)), the rules shall apply in the area in lieu of the 
requirements of subsection (k) if the State rules will achieve 
equivalent or greater emission reductions than would result from the 
application of the requirements of subsection (k) in the case of the 
aggregate mass of emissions of toxic air pollutants and in the case of 
the aggregate mass of emissions of ozone-forming compounds.''.
                                 <all>
```