alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John A. BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONMED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-6147.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: April 30, 2013.

John A. Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John A. Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failing to abide by the order of the court. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Bell seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Bell may be able to save his *202action by particularizing his complaint and amending it to comply with the district court’s order. *See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
Clear All

        21 November 2023    

                    Hydrogen Detected in Lunar Samples, Points to Resource Availability for Space Exploration                 
                U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) researchers have discovered solar-wind hydrogen in lunar samples, which indicates that water on the surface of the Moon may provide a vital resource for future lunar bases and longer-range space exploration.             

        18 September 2023    

                    Research Squadron VXS-1 Mobilizes Quickly to Track Hurricane Idalia                 
                PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – U.S. Naval Research Laboratory’s Scientific Development Squadron (VXS) 1 mobilized a crew for a NP-3C Orion operation with less than 24 hours’ notice to airdrop 18 SOFAR Spotter buoys in the Gulf of Mexico ahead of Hurricane Idalia on Monday, August 28.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
EXHIBIT 31.01
                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------

I, Gary D. Halbert, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ProFutures Long/Short
Growth Fund, L.P.;

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 we 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 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.

<PAGE>

Date:    August 12, 2005
         --------------------------

/s/ GARY D. HALBERT
-----------------------------------
Gary D. Halbert, President
ProFutures, Inc., General Partner
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lavette Rembert, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), imposed December 16, 1986, upon her conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon her plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The defendant was sentenced, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.04 (4), to a minimum term of imprisonment consisting of one half the maximum term. There is, however, no indication in the record that the defendant was given an opportunity to controvert her status as a second violent felony offender *(see,*CPL 400.15). Accordingly, as the People concede, the matter must be remitted for resentencing and for a proper adjudication as to the defendant’s status as a predicate felon *(see, People v Colon,*122 AD2d 150; *People v Meadows,*114 AD2d 1044; *People v Morrison,*100 AD2d 976). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
151 So. 920

#### Bennie FOSTER v. STATE.

2 Div. 32.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 14, 1933.

*694Harry W. Gamble and Hugh Mallory, Jr., both of Selma, for appellant.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

POSTER, Justice.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly Report of W. R. Grace &
Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information
contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Paul J. Norris
---------------------------
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Robert M. Tarola
---------------------------
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 10, 2003

A signed original 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.
EXHIBIT 10.5

**AMENDMENT NO. 2TOEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

            This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment’) dated as of January 1, 2004, is made by and between Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and RonaldP. Soltman (the “Executive”).

**            WHEREAS**, the Company and the Executive executed a certain Employment  Agreement (the “EA”) dated as of June 1, 1998, to secure the services of the Executive as its ExecutiveVice President, General Counsel  and Secretary; and

**            WHEREAS**, the Company and the Executive wish the Executive’s base salary set forth in Section 6(a) of the EA to be increased to $495,000, effective as of January 1, 2004.

**            NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that the EA is amended as follows:

            1.         Defined Terms.  Except for those terms defined above, the definitions of capitalized terms used in this Amendment are as provided inthe EA.

            2.**        **Amendment to Section 6(a).  Section 6(a) of the EA entitled “Base Salary” is hereby deleted and replaced with thefollowing new Section 6(a):

                        “(a).  *Base Salary.*  The Executive’s base salary hereunder, from July 1, 2001 to December 31,2003, shall be $450,000 per year, payable semi-monthly. Effective  January 1, 2004, the Executive’s base salary hereunder shall be $495,000 per year, payable semi-monthly. The Board shall review such base salary at least annually and make such adjustmentfrom time to time as it may deem advisable, but the base salary shall not at any time be reduced from the base salary in effect from time to time.”

            3.         Ratification.  All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are hereby ratified by the Company and the Executive.

----

**- 2 -**

****

**            IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by  its duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment, each as of the day and year firstset forth above.

                                                                                   **Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.**

                                                                                   By:       /s/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.                                                                                                                    Charles N. Martin, Jr.                                                                                               Chairman of the Board and                                                                                               Chief Executive Officer

**                                                                                   Executive**:

****

                                                                                   /s/ Ronald P. Soltman                                                                                                                         Ronald P. Soltman
# C_2009004EN.01000401.xml

| 9.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/4

---

Notice of the expiry of certain countervailing measures

(2009/C 4/06)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1), following which no request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the countervailing measures mentioned below will shortly expire.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (2).

2

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Bedlinen
  (cotton type) | India | Countervailing duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 (OJ L 12, 17.1.2004, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 813/2008 (OJ L 220, 15.8.2008, p. 6) | 18.1.2009 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Bedlinen

(cotton type)

India

Countervailing duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 (OJ L 12, 17.1.2004, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 813/2008 (OJ L 220, 15.8.2008, p. 6)

18.1.2009

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 26.7.2008, p. 12.

1

(2)  OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.

2

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 OMNI ENERGY SERVICES CORP.
A LOUISIANA CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION I, James C. Eckert, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OMNI Energy Services Corp., a
Louisiana corporation (the registrant); 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 officers 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 quarterly report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of 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 controls over financial reporting. Date:
May 19, 2005 /s/ James C. EckertJames C. EckertChief Executive Officer
 29
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23949-23950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11845]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigations Nos. 731-TA-726, 727, and 729 (Review)


Polyvinyl Alcohol From China, Japan, and Taiwan

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Termination of five-year reviews.

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

[[Page 23950]]

SUMMARY: The subject five-year reviews were initiated in April 2001 to 
determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on 
polyvinyl alcohol from China, Japan, and Taiwan would be likely to lead 
to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to a 
domestic industry. On May 3, 2001, the Department of Commerce published 
notice that it was revoking the orders ``[b]ecause no domestic 
interested party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by 
the applicable deadline'' (66 FR 22145). Accordingly, pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(c)), the 
subject reviews are terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vera Libeau (202-205-3176), Office of 
Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that 
information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the 
Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility 
impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the 
Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. 
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by 
accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record 
for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic 
docket (EDIS-ON-LINE) at http://dockets.usitc.gov/eol/public

    Authority: These reviews are being terminated under authority of 
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 
207.69).

    Issued: May 4, 2001.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11845 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hague Corp.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Squires, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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 result of operations of the Company.





By:
/s/ STEPHEN SQUIRESStephen SquiresPrincipal Executive OfficerOctober 17, 2011
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7878

HERBERT J. ROBINSON, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Public Safety , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. Martin K. Reidinger , Chief District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv - 00511

- MR )

Submitted : March 23 , 2021 Decided: March 29, 2021

Before THACKER , QUATTLEBAUM , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Herbert J. Robinson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Herbert J. Robinson, Jr., seeks to appe al the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 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 n ot issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the distr ict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When 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))

. In his informal brief, Robinson does not challenge the district court’s determination that his § 2254 petition was untimely. Because, on appeal, we limit our review to th e issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief, s ee 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 i n that brief. ” ) , we conclude that Robinson has failed to show that the district court’s procedural ruling is debatable. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED