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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7273

VERNON BRENT DOWLING,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant - Appellee,

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; FBOP 

DIRECTOR SAMUELS; ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RESPONSIBLE FOR 

NEGLIGENCE, INJURY, AND DAMAGES AND HEALTH 

SERVICES/CORPORATE CONTRACT, (full names are unknown at this time); 

OFFICER WALKER; OFFICER PLATTS; LT. MERRILL; WARDEN A. 

MANSUKHANI; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FBOP; 

DIRECTORS SAMUELS, (FBOP); FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; HEALTH 

SERVICES; WARDEN MANSUKHANI; MS. WILLIAMS,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:16-cv-03468-DCN)

Submitted: December 10, 2020 Decided: January 5, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon Brent Dowling, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Vernon B. Dowling appeals the district court’s orders accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his claims pursuant to the Federal 

Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 

and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dowling v. United 

States, No. 0:16-cv-03468-DCN (D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2018 & June 18, 2019). We also deny 

Dowling’s pending motions to appoint counsel, to seal a motion for appointment of 

counsel, for a transcript at government expense, to stay the appeal, to provide the 

Defendants’ insurance information, and to withdraw his consent to proceed under the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act. 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
32.2





PERICOM
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 26, 2009 (the
“Report”), I, Angela Chen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:


(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.




February
      4, 2010By:
                /s/ Angela ChenAngela
      ChenChief
      Financial OfficerPericom
      Semiconductor
Corporation
Dismissed; Opinion Filed November 27, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01243

- CV

JOHN BRADLEY MITCHEL L AND KONAE SABRINA NOWELL , Appellants

V.

TRACY ALAN NOWELL , Appellee

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 97171

- 86



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Partida

- Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Partida

- Kipness

Before the Court i s the November 19, 2019 joint notice of settlement and request for

dismissal of this appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

191243F.P05 /Robbie Partida

- Kipness/
ROBBIE PARTIDA

- KIPNESS
JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOHN BRADLEY MITCHELL AND KONAE SABRINA NOWELL, Appellants

No. 05

- 19

- 01243

- CV V.

TRACY ALAN NOWELL, Appellee On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 97171

- 86. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida

Kipness, Justices Osborne and Pedersen, III participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Subject to any agreement of the parties, we ORDER that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judg ment entered this 27 th day of November, 2019

.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906

 

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

I,Paul Gothard, Chief Financial Officer of Medicsight, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fullycomplies 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 theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|          |   |
|---------------|--------|
|          | By:    | /s/  Paul  Gothard |   |
|          |   | Paul  Gothard |
|          |   | Chief  Financial Officer |
|          |   |
| May  13, 2004 |   |

 

E-4

----
#### PEARSALL, Respondent, v. MASON, Appellant.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894.)

Action by Thomas Pearsall against John Mason.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

Franklin Bien, for appellant.

Harriman & Fessenden, for respondent.

No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001018749
<NAME> OCEAN VISTA LAND COMPANY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,165,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    200,000
<COMMON>                                       350,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,611,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,165,898
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
(August 13, 1987)

#### James Ford et al., Respondents, v Servistar Corporation et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order, of the Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew R. Tyler, J.), entered November 13, 1986, which denied defendants’ motion for a change of venue from New York to Suffolk County, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion of the court, without costs.

*24The events which gave rise to the within personal injury action occurred in Suffolk County. Suffolk County is also the location of plaintiffs’ residence and the residence of 3 of the 5 defendants. The hospitals at which plaintiff’s injuries were treated are situated in Suffolk County as are the offices of plaintiff’s surgeon. The only connection the action has with New York County is that one of the defendants has its principal place of business here. Under the circumstances, we think that this transitory action ought to be tried in Suffolk where it arose, and, therefore, that defendants’ motion for a change of venue should have been granted. *(See, Brunner v Joubert,*118 AD2d 424; *McGuire v General Elec. Co.,*117 AD2d 523; *O’Leary v Hull,*101 AD2d 741, *appeal dismissed*63 NY2d 773; *Meier v Ford Motor Co.,*93 AD2d 729; *Slavin v Whispell,*5 AD2d 296, 297-298.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - 44 CFR Parts 77, 78, 79, 80, 201, and 206
          - [Docket ID FEMA-2019-0011]
          - RIN 1660-AA96

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        On September 10, 2021, FEMA published in the                         **Federal Register**                         a final rule revising the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazard Mitigation Assistance and mitigation planning regulations to reflect current statutory authority and agency practice. This final rule corrects the effective date of this rule to read October 1, 2021.                    

# DATES:

This correction is effective September 17, 2021.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The docket for this rulemaking is available for inspection using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at                         *http://www.regulations.gov*                         and can be viewed by following that website's instructions.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Katherine Fox, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 202-646-1046,                         *Katherine.Fox5@fema.dhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. 2021-19186, beginning on page 50653 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Friday, September 10, 2021, the following correction is made:                

                    1. On page 50653, in the first column, “                    **DATES:**                     This rule is effective October 12, 2021.” is corrected to read “                    **DATES:**                     This rule is effective October 1, 2021.”                

Deanne B. Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2021-20090 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-11-P
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 China Kangtai Cactus Bio-Tech Inc.s (the Company)  Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hong Bu, 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 the best of my 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 Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  Dated: April 2, 2007   /s/ Hong BuHong BuChief Financial Officer, Director and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
#### In the Matter of Daniel McKillen, Petitioner, v Cesar A. Perales et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated July 19, 1985, and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency discontinuing the petitioner’s grant of public assistance in the category of home relief and medical assistance for a period of 30 days and until petitioner is willing to comply with the requirements relating to employable public assistance recipients.

Adjudged that the petition is granted to the extent that the determination of the respondent State Commissioner is annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s grant of public assistance retroactive to the date of its termination, and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed on the merits.

It is well settled that a local agency may not discontinue a recipient’s public assistance benefits unless the recipient’s failure to comply with one of the department’s work rules is found to be willful (Social Services Law § 131 [5], [6]; 18 NYCRR 385.3 [a] [11; *Allen v*Blum, 58 NY2d 954, 956; *Matter*
      *271
      *of Ray v Blum,*91 AD2d 822). In the case at bar, the local agency, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services, discontinued the assistance on the ground that the petitioner had willfully failed to report to the Suffolk County Department of Labor on April 16, 1985. The local agency, in its decision, relied on the fact that the petitioner had failed to respond to a letter allegedly sent by the Department of Labor to the petitioner on April 18, 1985. That letter, *inter alia,*advised the petitioner of his failure to report to the Department of Labor on April 16, 1985, and asked him to provide the Department of Labor with the reasons for his failure.

At the fair hearing, the petitioner and his wife testified that they never received the letter allegedly sent by the Department of Labor to the petitioner on April 18, 1985. In contrast, the local agency failed to provide any acceptable evidence that the letter dated April 18, 1985, was mailed. It produced no one with personal knowledge that that letter had actually been sent or any evidence that the Department of Labor had followed an established routine in sending this type of letter *(see, Matter of Ray v Blum, supra; Matter of Ware v Shang,*73 AD2d 970). In the absence of competent proof that the letter dated April 18, 1985, was mailed, no presumption arose that the letter was received *(see, Matter of Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 922, 923). Accordingly, the local agency failed to present substantial evidence in support of its determination.

Finally, we have reviewed the petitioner’s claim for attorney’s fees and find it to be without merit *(see, Matter of Bess v Toia,*66 AD2d 844). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
##### 



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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Prescient Applied Intelligence, Inc. f/k/a
The viaLink Company (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jane F. Hoffer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 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; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. /s/ Jane F. HofferJane F. HofferChief Executive OfficerMarch 31, 2005
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Donald E. Clarke, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Visual Networks, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 officer and I are 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 officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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 control over financial reporting 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: November 15, 2004



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Donald E. Clarke                                                 
|Donald E. Clarke Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 179 (Monday, September 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52222-52223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20239]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of a Change in Status of the Extended Benefit (EB) Program 
for the District of Columbia

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under 
the EB program that has occurred since the publication of the last 
notice regarding the District of Columbia's EB status:
    <bullet> Based in the language in the District's law which 
conditioned the applicability of the Total Unemployment Rate (TUR) 
trigger on full Federal funding resulted in an ``off'' indicator for 
the District of Columbia for the week ending August 21, 2021. This will 
end any payable period associated with the TUR trigger for the District 
of Columbia on September 11, 2021.
    The trigger notice covering state eligibility for the EB program 
can be found at: http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims_arch.as.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State 
Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement 
to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and 
is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)).
    Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to 
inquire about their rights under the program,

[[Page 52223]]

should contact their State Workforce Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment 
and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance Room S-
4524, Attn: Thomas Stengle, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20210, telephone number (202) 693-2991 (this is not a toll-free number) 
or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#421136272c252e276c162a2d2f233102262d2e6c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="247750414a4348410a704c4b49455764404b480a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Signed in Washington, DC.
Lenita Jacobs-Simmons,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2021-20239 Filed 9-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
BIG SANDY RESERVOIRLatitude: 42.25Longitude: -109.428Elevation: 6718

BIG SANDY RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Pocket Creek Site Page...



Pocket Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Larsen Creek Site Page...



Larsen Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Big Sandy Opening Site Page...



Big Sandy Opening

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hobbs Park Site Page...



Hobbs Park