alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of CD&L, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Albert W. Van Ness, Jr., Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of
                  the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated
                  results of operations of the Company for the periods
                  presented.

Dated: November 14, 2003


                                                  \s\ Albert W. Van Ness, Jr.
                                                  --------------------------
                                                  Albert W. Van Ness, Jr.
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Antonia Politis, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 228]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 30, 2011, as amended by decision filed April 14, 2011, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

Claimant was discharged from her employment at a day spa, applied for unemployment insurance benefits and was originally determined to be eligible for benefits. After claimant failed to appear at the hearing requested by the employer, a default decision was entered overruling the initial determination of eligibility. Claimant’s motion to reopen the claim was denied in a decision filed January 6, 2010. Claimant thereafter waited until November 8, 2010 to appeal the ALJ’s decision. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board declined to consider the appeal because it was not timely filed and claimant failed to offer a reasonable excuse. Claimant now appeals and we affirm.

“Labor Law § 621 (1) requires that an appeal to the Board from an ALJ’s decision must be made within 20 days of the date the decision is mailed or personally delivered . . . and the statutory time limit is strictly construed” *(Matter of Green [Commissioner of Labor],*87 AD3d 1222, 1222 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; *see Matter of Page [Commissioner of Labor],*65 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2009]). Here, claimant failed to offer any excuse for her untimely appeal, and her arguments regarding the underlying merits of the denial of her application for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before us (see *Matter of Page [Commissioner of Labor],*65 AD3d at 723; *Matter of Harris [Commissioner of Labor],*45 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2007]). Thus, the Board’s dismissal of claimant’s appeal must be affirmed (see *Matter of Harris [Commissioner of Labor],*45 AD3d at 1032).

Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### Leonora Moran, Appellant, v Regency Savings Bank, F.S.B., et al., Defendants, and Rosenfeld, Bernstein & Tannenhauser, as Trustee, Respondent. Barry Siskin, Esq., Nonparty Appellant.

Submitted January 2, 2007;

decided February 20, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
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 State

          - [Public notice 11545]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Public notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice of receipt of request from Afghanistan for cultural property protection.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Anne Compton, Cultural Heritage Center, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs: 202-632-6571;                         *culprop@state.gov;*                         include “Afghanistan” in the subject line.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The former Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan made a request to the Government of the United States under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO                     *Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.*                     The United States Department of State received this request on April, 28, 2021. The former Government of Afghanistan's request seeks U.S. import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological material representing Afghanistan's cultural patrimony. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), notification of the request is hereby published. A public summary of the former Government of Afghanistan's request and information about U.S. implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention will be available at the Cultural Heritage Center website:                     *http://culturalheritage.state.gov.*

Allison Davis,

Executive Director CPAC, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-20341 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134284 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134284 COA: 275725 Oakland CC: 03-192074-FC ALBERT TERRY GRANDBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing en titlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

t1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 25, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BILLY JOE WINROW,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-5019

v. (N.D. Oklahoma)

JUSTIN JONES, Director; WALTER

DINWIDDIE, Warden; JAMES

LOWMAN, employee; JACK

LEMONS, employee; SGT. REEVES,

employee,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 4:08-CV-00761-JHP-TLW)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Billy Joe Winrow, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals

the dismissal of his civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various

personnel of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. The United States District

Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled that his claims were barred by
-2-

his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We see no error in the cogent decision by the district court. As we

understand Mr. Winrow’s brief on appeal, the essence of his argument is that

there were no administrative remedies to pursue because the prison informed him

(apparently incorrectly) in its response to a request to staff (RTS) that the matter

was the subject of litigation and therefore could not be considered. We reject the

argument. First, Mr. Winrow does not explain why he could not have pursued the

denial of his RTS by filing a grievance through proper prison procedures. 

Second, the record establishes that he did not misunderstand the response to his

RTS as barring prison administrative remedies; even after that response, he

repeatedly submitted grievances and requests to staff (albeit improperly)

regarding the same incident. 

We AFFIRM the judgment below.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge
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 eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A (First Amendment) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jim C.
Pyle,  Principal  Accounting  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; 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/  Jim C. Pyle
-------------------------------
Jim C. Pyle,
Principal Accounting Officer
September 7, 2004


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to eLinear, Inc. and will be retained by eLinear, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



<PAGE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeBiographiesDisplay
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         675,906
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,424,192
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         179,066
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           180,123
<LOANS>                                    114,822,275
<ALLOWANCE>                                    669,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             123,855,619
<DEPOSITS>                                  85,776,785
<SHORT-TERM>                                19,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            679,789
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,319
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,846,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             123,855,619
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              9,046,683
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               27,308
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               192,008
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             9,265,999
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,813,986
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,519,870
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,746,129
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  266,514
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                739,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,597,828
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,054,242
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,054,242
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.71
<LOANS-NON>                                    678,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               436,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   83,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    50,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              669,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           669,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2278 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the diversity 

immigrant program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2015 

Mr. POSEY (for himself and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate 

the diversity immigrant program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as— 

5 (1) the ‘‘Security and Fairness Enhancement 

6 for America Act of 2015’’; or 

7 (2) the ‘‘SAFE for America Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2278 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF DIVERSITY IMMI4 GRANTS.—Section 201 of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)— 

7 (A) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of para8 graph (1); 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘; and’’ at the end of para10 graph (2) and inserting a period; and 

11 (C) by striking paragraph (3); and 

12 (2) by striking subsection (e). 

13 (b) ALLOCATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS.— 

14 Section 203 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended— 

15 (1) by striking subsection (c); 

16 (2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), or 

17 (c),’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b),’’; 

18 (3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) 

19 and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); 

20 (4) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), or 

21 (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b)’’; and 

22 (5) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), and 

23 (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) and (b)’’. 

24 (c) PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT STA25 TUS.—Section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amend26 ed— 


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2278 IH

1 (1) by striking subsection (a)(1)(I); and 

2 (2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), or 

3 (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b)’’. 

4 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall take effect on October 1, 2015. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7648

ALBERT G. GURKIN, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BARNEY OWENS; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Respondents - Appellees.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02069-D)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert G. Gurkin, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert G. Gurkin, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here,

the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both 

that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 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)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Gurkin’s informal brief, we

conclude that Gurkin has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). 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
REVISED July 28, 2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20589

PETROBRAS AMERICA, INCORPORATED; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS 

AT LLOYD'S, LONDON AND INSURANCE COMPANIES SUBSCRIBING 

TO POLICY NO. B0576/JM12318, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

VICINAY CADENAS, S.A., 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Opinion on Rehearing

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The panel hereby clarifies its previous opinion, Petrobras Am., Inc. v. 

Vicinay Cadenas, 815 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2016), as follows.

The holding announced in Part I of the panel’s opinion, concluding that 

the Underwriters did not waive their choice of law argument under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), necessarily depended upon the 

unique statutory scheme created by OCSLA. Through OCSLA, Congress 

legislated the trichotomy of federal law, state law, and residual maritime law 
No. 14-20589

2

for disputes arising on the Outer Continental Shelf. See Rodrigue v. Aetna 

Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U.S. 352, 355, 89 S. Ct. 1835 (1969) (“the purpose of the 

[OCSLA] was to define a body of law applicable to the seabed, the subsoil and 

the fixed structures such as those in question here on the Outer Continental 

Shelf.”). And Section 1333(a) of OCSLA “supersede[s] the normal choice of law 

rules that the forum would apply.” In re DEEPWATER HORIZON, 745 F.3d 

157, 166 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 

473, 480–81, 101 S. Ct. 2870 (1981)). Consequently, our holding does not 

address waiver of a choice of law argument outside of the OCSLA context and 

does not disturb authorities holding that, in other contexts, a choice of law 

argument may be waived. 

In re HECI Exploration Corp., 862 F.2d 513, 520 (5th Cir. 1988), the 

case cited by the petition for rehearing en banc for the proposition that the 

panel’s opinion creates an intra-circuit conflict, is emblematic of such nonOCSLA authority. HECI is distinguishable for a multitude of reasons: because 

it is based on ERISA law, involved a preemption defense, and is by its own 

terms confined to its facts. Indeed, the HECI panel emphasized that it 

“announce[d] no general principle regarding the proper course of conduct for 

an appellate court confronted with a situation in which the parties fail to argue 

the applicable federal law in a federally preempted area such as ERISA.” Id. 

at 526. Furthermore, the HECI holding was “necessarily colored by [the 

panel’s] position” as a “second-level appellate court” reviewing a bankruptcy 

court decision, id., which is, of course, not the case here.

Finally, this appeal arises in admiralty in an interlocutory posture 

because the choice of law argument was raised in a motion for leave to amend 

a complaint, and a claim technically remains pending before the district court. 

Consequently, the panel opinion does not opine on different scenarios, such as 
No. 14-20589

3

where a party raises a choice of law argument under OCSLA for the first time 

after trial and judgment.