alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6186

THURMOND WILFORD RANKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-3-3) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 3, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thurmond Wilford Rankin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Thurmond Wilford Rankin appeals the magistrate judge’s order conditionally filing his complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
#### In the Matter of Securities Research Services, Inc., Appellant. Lillian Roberts, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

— Motion for reargument granted, without costs, and upon reargument, decision dated July 31, 1986 (122 AD2d 504) rescinded and order entered September 19, 1986 vacated and the prior decision of this court is amended to read as follows: "Decision affirmed, without costs *(see, Matter of Locasto [Panache Mgt. & Consulting Corp.*— Roberts], 122 AD2d 368).” Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DND Technologies, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

      To my  knowledge,  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 14, 2005

                                            BY: /s/ G. Dennis Key
                                                -----------------
                                                G. DENNIS KEY
                                                CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
BASAVARAJ HOOLI, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2024

- 1933

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23

- cv

- 00878

- RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before L OURIE

, C UNNINGHAM

, and S TARK

, Circuit Judges

.
P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

On April 2, 2024, t he United States Court of Federal
Claims entered judgment dismiss ing Basavaraj Hooli’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction . The Court of Federal Claims received Mr. Hooli’s notice of appeal on June 7,

2024. The United States now moves the court to dismiss this appeal as untimely or alternatively to summarily Case: 24-1933 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 08/20/2024HOOLI v. US 2

affirm the Court of Federal Claims’s judgment

. Mr. Hooli has not responded.

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the Court of Federal Claims within 60 days of the entry of judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2522 (“Review of a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims shall be obtained by filing a notice of appeal

. . . within the time

. . . prescribed for appeals to United States courts of appeals from the
United States district court s.”); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b) (providing a 60

- day deadline for appeals from district courts in cases involving the United States); Fe d. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(B); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(C). The statutory deadline for taking an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims has been held to be mandatory and jurisdictional, such that this court would not be permitted to excuse a late notice.
Marandola v. United States , 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008); s ee also Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007); cf

. Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1). Here, the notice of appeal was
due no later than June 3 , 202 4

. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Because the notice of appeal was not received within that time, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal
is dismissed.

( 2 ) Each party shall bear its own costs

.

August 20

, 202 4
Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 24-1933 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 08/20/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         9,841
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  29,187<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,881)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               42,357
<PP&E>                                         4,204<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 51,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,249
<BONDS>                                        777<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       164
<OTHER-SE>                                     33,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   51,128
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               77,866
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  66,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               17,892
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (515)<F4>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,126)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,006)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,006)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.24)
        
<FN>
<F1> Shown net of allowance for  uncollectible  accounts on face of Consolidated
     Balance Sheet.
<F2> Shown  in  this  Financial   Data  Schedule  net  of  related   accumulated
     depreciation for consistency with Consolidated Balance Sheet.
<F3> Represents the long-term portion of capital lease obligations.
<F4> Represents interest income of the Company.
</FN>

</TABLE>
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PERIODIC REPORT**

|   | (1) | the                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended                June                30, 2007, (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                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:              October 15, 2007 |                                  |
|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                  |
|                                 | /s/              Geoffrey Donaldson   |
|                                 | Geoffrey              Donaldson  |
|                                 | Chief              Executive Officer  |

|   | (1) | the                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended                June                30, 2007, (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                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:              October 15, 2007 |                               |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                 |                               |
|                                 | /s/              Karen Nazzareno   |
|                                 | Karen              Nazzareno  |
|                                 | Controller                         |

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5840 

To prevent the participation of the Attorney General in any lawsuit that 

seeks to invalidate certain provisions of Arizona law relating to aliens 

unlawfully present in the United States without first satisfying certain 

conditions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2010 

Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. 

MARCHANT, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. KING of Iowa, 

Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. CARTER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. 

CHAFFETZ, Mr. ROYCE, and Mr. FRANKS of Arizona) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prevent the participation of the Attorney General in any 

lawsuit that seeks to invalidate certain provisions of Arizona law relating to aliens unlawfully present in the 

United States without first satisfying certain conditions. 

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 the ‘‘Sanctuary City Preven5 tion Act of 2010’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5840 IH

1 SEC. 2. IN GENERAL. 

2 The Attorney General may not expend funds made 

3 available in any provision of law to participate in any law4 suit that seeks to invalidate those provisions of the Ari5 zona Revised Statutes amended by Arizona Senate Bill 

6 1070, 49th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., Ch. 113 (Az. 2010) (as 

7 amended by Arizona House Bill 2162, 49th Leg., 2nd 

8 Reg. Sess., Ch. 211 (Az. 2010)) until the date that the 

9 Attorney General submits to the Congress a report setting 

10 forth a plan to enforce the immigration laws (as such term 

11 is defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and 

12 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))) in any State or 

13 subdivision of a State that has in effect any law, policy, 

14 or procedure in contravention of subsection (a) or (b) of 

15 section 642 of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immi16 grant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Mark Bahouth, Petitioner, v Thomas J. Sardino, as Chief of Police of the City of Syracuse, Respondent.

— Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Following a hearing, petitioner, a taxicab driver, was found guilty of 16 violations of the City of Syracuse Ground Transportation Ordinance. Respondent suspended petitioner’s license for 90 days and fined him $100. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding alleging that the Corporation Counsel’s refusal to grant his demands for prehearing discovery, coupled with an allegedly vague notice of the charges against him, inhibited his defense and denied him a full and fair hearing as required by *Matter of Hecht v Monaghan*(307 NY 461).

Initially, we note that since the issues petitioner raises are questions of law, not substantial evidence, this matter should not have been transferred to this court in the first instance (CPLR 7804 [g]). Since the record before us is sufficient to dispose of the issues raised we will then decide them as if the *991matter had been presented properly *(Matter of Consumer Protection Bd. v Public Serv. Commn.,*85 AD2d 321, 323, *appeal dismissed*57 NY2d 673; *Matter of Shook v Lavine,*49 AD2d 238, 239-240).

The notice of the charges against petitioner specified each act of misconduct, the date and place where it occurred, and the particular section of the ordinance petitioner allegedly violated. Thus, the notice was reasonably calculated to apprise petitioner of the charges against him so as to enable him to adequately prepare and present a defense *(Matter of Fitzgerald v Libous,*44 NY2d 660, 661; *Moise v Christian,*97 AD2d 536, 537; *Matter of Bateman v City of Ogdensburg,*55 AD2d 781; *Orchard Park Cent. School Dist. v Orchard Park Teachers Assn.,*50 AD2d 462, 469, *appeal dismissed*38 NY2d 911; *cf. Montrois v City of Watertown,*115 AD2d 298). Petitioner’s reliance upon *Matter of Hecht v Monaghan (supra)*is misplaced. The issue there was whether a license could be revoked based upon evidence belatedly presented at the close of an administrative hearing when the petitioner had no advance notice that the evidence would be considered. That is not the case here since the findings of petitioner’s misconduct were confined to the specific charges of which petitioner was adequately notified.

The penalty imposed was considerably less than the maximum provided in the ordinance and under the circumstances was not disproportionate to the misconduct found by the Hearing Officer and affirmed by the respondent. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Shaheen, J.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 06-1976

JOHNNY FRITS MEWENGKANG,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZÁLES,

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on May 25, 2007, is amended

as follows:

On page 6, line 12, "asylum" should be replaced with

"withholding".

On page 6, line 14, "asylum" should be replaced with

"withholding."

On page 7, line 9, "and withholding" should be inserted

after "asylum."
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5923 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5923

   To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to repeal 
            certain limitations on tax health care benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2010

   Mr. Paulsen (for himself, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Akin, Mr. 
  Burton of Indiana, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Cassidy) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to repeal 
            certain limitations on tax health care benefits.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MEDICINE QUALIFIED ONLY IF FOR 
              PRESCRIBED DRUG OR INSULIN.

    Section 9003 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(Public Law 111-148) and the amendments made by such section are 
repealed.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS 
              UNDER CAFETERIA PLANS.

    Sections 9005 and 10902 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and section 1403 of the Health Care and 
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152) and the 
amendments made by such sections are repealed.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

















<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 the  accompanying  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of  Infinity
Capital  Group,  Inc.  for the year ended  December  31,  2008,  I,  Theodore A.
Greenberg,  Chief Financial  Officer,  Chief Investment  Officer,  Secretary and
Principal  Accounting  Officer of Infinity Capital Group, Inc., hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

     a.   such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Infinity  Capital  Group,  Inc. for
          the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements
          of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     b.   the  information  contained  in such  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of
          Infinity  Capital  Group,  Inc. for the year ended  December 31, 2008,
          fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Infinity Capital Group, Inc.


Date: March 31, 2009

                              /s/ Theodore A. Greenberg
                              ----------------------------------------------
                              Theodore A. Greenberg, Chief Financial Officer,
                              Chief Investment Officer, Secretary and Director
                              (Principal Accounting Officer)



This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The Company's 2005 Executive Stock Unit Progarm, as amended



 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 SUMMARY SHEET FOR EXECUTIVE CASH COMPENSATION 
 The
following table sets forth annual base salaries provided to the Company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer and other named executive officers in 2009 and the 2010 base salaries approved by the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors (“Committee”) on March 26, 2010. 
  

							
	 Named Executive Officers
	  	2009 Base
Salaries	  	2010 Base
Salaries
	 David S. Haffner, President & Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	900,000	  	$	922,500
	 Matthew C. Flanigan, Senior Vice President – Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	395,000	  	$	405,000
	 Karl G. Glassman, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
	  	$	675,000	  	$	692,000
	 Joseph D. Downes, Jr., Senior Vice President, President – Industrial Materials
	  	$	291,800	  	$	312,100
	 Paul R. Hauser, Senior Vice President, President – Residential Furnishings
	  	$	320,600	  	$	328,600

 The executive
officers will also be eligible to receive a cash award under the Company’s 2009 Key Officers Incentive Plan (filed March 26, 2009 as Appendix B to the Company’s Proxy Statement) in accordance with the 2010 Award Formula (filed
March 31, 2010 as Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K). An executive’s cash award is calculated by multiplying his annual salary at the end of the year by a percentage (“Target Percentage”) set by the Committee, then
applying an award formula adopted by the Committee for that year. The Target Percentages applicable to the Company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer and other named executive officers are shown in the following table.
Some of the Target Percentages increased in 2010 as reflected below. 
  

					
	 Named Executive Officers
	  	2009 Target
Percentages	 	2010 Target
Percentages
	 David S. Haffner, President & Chief Executive Officer
	  	80%	 	90%
	 Matthew C. Flanigan, Senior Vice President – Chief Financial Officer
	  	60%	 	65%
	 Karl G. Glassman, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
	  	70%	 	75%
	 Joseph D. Downes, Jr., Senior Vice President, President – Industrial Materials
	  	50%	 	50%
	 Paul R. Hauser, Senior Vice President, President – Residential Furnishings
	  	50%	 	50%

 Individual
Performance Goals. An executive’s cash award under the Award Formula for 2010 is based, in part, on individual performance goals established outside the 2009 Key Officers Incentive Plan (20% relative weight). The assessment of most of these
individual performance goals is inherently subjective and qualitative. The types of goals for our named executive officers in 2010 include, among other things, strategic planning, talent management/succession planning, new product development,
continuous improvement projects, cost savings initiatives, compliance improvements, sales and operations planning, development of new growth platforms, and various improvements at specific global operations.