alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1086

VICTORIA LANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICK MOBILE HOME PARK, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-4043) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 4, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victoria Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Malloy Cook, COOK AND ROY, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Victoria Lane appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss Lane’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Lane leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lane v. Patrick Mobile Home Park, Inc. , No. CA-03-4043 (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD Document 45-3 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD Document 45-3 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-13684-GEL-MHD Document 3 Filed 12/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7612

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARVIN SPRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (2:01-cr-00011-1; 2:03-cv-2317)

Submitted: February 26, 2007 Decided: March 13, 2007

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

M. Timothy Koontz, Williamson, West Virginia, for Appellant. John

Castle Parr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Spry seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Spry has not made the requisite showing.

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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1



WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of
Nuvilex and its subsidiaries (“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended April 30, 2014 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), the undersigned, Kenneth L. Waggoner, Chief
Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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
13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.





|Dated:
    October 16, 2014 |  | By: | /s/
    Kenneth L. Waggoner                                             
|--------------------------- |  | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                            |  |     | Name:  Kenneth L. Waggoner                                              
|                            |  |     | Title:    Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished
to the SEC or its staff upon request.  This exhibit is not “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided by applicable rules of the SEC.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-0866

LT Case No. 2012-CF-0959

____________________________

JOHN ETHRIDGE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County. 

Joel D. Fritton, Judge. 

George Edward Reres, of Rereslaw, LLC, Fort Lauderdale, 

for Appellant. 

No Appearance for Appellee. 

July 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, JAY, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2215

JACQUELINE QUINN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEBBIE WATSON, Deli Manager for Publix

Supermarket; PUBLIX SUPERMARKET, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (CA-04-104-1)

Submitted: December 8, 2004 Decided: January 14, 2005

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacqueline Quinn, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund Joseph McKenna, FORD &

HARRISON, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee Publix Supermarket, Inc.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

We note that Quinn would now be time-barred from initiating

a new action. A Title VII action must be brought within 90 days of

receipt of a right-to-sue letter issued by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission. See § 2000e-5(f)(1). In instances where

a complaint is timely filed and later dismissed, the timely filing

of the complaint does not "toll" or suspend the ninety-day

limitations period. See Minette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023,

1026-27 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d

1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992); Brown v. Hartshorne Pub. Sch. Dist. No.

1, 926 F.2d 959, 961 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that limitations

period was not tolled during pendency of dismissed action)). Thus,

even construing the district court’s order as a dismissal without

prejudice will not benefit Quinn.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jacqueline Quinn appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) (“Title

VII”) complaint. On August 26, 2004, the district court dismissed

Quinn’s complaint on jurisdictional grounds. The court, adopting

the reasoning set forth in Defendants’s motion to dismiss,

determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), Title VII’s venue-laying

provision. When a plaintiff files an action in the wrong venue,

however, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (2000) directs courts to "dismiss, or

if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case" to the

proper venue. Because the record does not reflect such a

determination,* we remand this case for a determination of whether

a transfer to an appropriate jurisdiction would be in the interest

of justice. 

Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court

and remand the case for further consideration in light of this
- 3 -

opinion. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
142 So. 918

#### C. R. SHARP v. NEW YORK UNDERWRITERS’ INSURANCE CO.

8 Div. 386.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 26, 1932.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1932.

Jas. C. Roberts, of Florence, for appellant.

Coleman, Coleman, Spain & Stewart, of Birmingham, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

Reversed and.remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
# C_2005022EN.01001001.xml

| 27.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/10

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2005/C 22/04)

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 (1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Division B-1), J-79 5/16, B-1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Black colorformers | Japan | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 2263/2000
  (OJ L 259, 13.10.2000, p. 1) | 14.10.2005 |
| Colour television picture tubes (cathode-ray) | India
  Republic of Korea | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 2313/2000
  (OJ L 267, 20.10.2000, p. 1) | 21.10.2005 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Black colorformers

Japan

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 2263/2000

(OJ L 259, 13.10.2000, p. 1)

14.10.2005

Colour television picture tubes (cathode-ray)

India

Republic of Korea

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 2313/2000

(OJ L 267, 20.10.2000, p. 1)

21.10.2005

---

(1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

1

(2)  Telex COMEU B 21877; Telefax (32-2) 295 65 05.

2

---
Interim Decision #3344



### In re Alex OSEIWUSU, Respondent
File A72 537 754 - San Pedro Decided March 25, 1998

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals

(1) An alien who arrives in the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole is an “arriving alien,” as that term is defined in the federal regulations.(2) According to the regulations, an Immigration Judge has no authority over the apprehension, custody, and detention of arriving aliens and is therefore without authority to consider the bond request of an alien returning pursuant to a grant of advance parole.
Pro se Before: Board Panel: HEILMAN, COLE, and MATHON, Board Members. HEILMAN, Board Member:This is a timely appeal from an Immigration Judge’s bond redetermination decision. The request for oral argument before the Board is denied. 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e) (1997). The request for a waiver of the appeal fee is granted. The decision of the Immigration Judge will be vacated and the record will be returned to the Immigration Court. The respondent last arrived in the United States in April of 1996. At the time he returned to the United States, the respondent was an applicant for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration andNationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (1994), based on his marriage to a citizen of the United States. The respondent was paroled into the United States upon his arrival pursuant to a grant of advance parole. The federal regulations define an “arriving alien” as follows: “The term arriving alien means an alien who seeks admission to or transit through the United States . . . . An arriving alien remains such even if paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act.” 62 Fed. Reg. 10,312, 10,330 (1997) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1.1(q)) (interim, effective Apr. 1, 1997). Given the fact that the respondent was paroled into the United 19Interim Decision #3344
States, he falls within the definition of an “arriving alien.” Pursuant to the regulations, an Immigration Judge has no authority over the apprehension, custody, and detention of arriving aliens. 62 Fed. Reg. 10,312, 10,361 (1997) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(5)(i)) (interim, effective Apr. 1, 1997). Moreover, arriving aliens cannot avail themselves of the review process provided in the regulations. Id.; see also 62 Fed. Reg. 10,312, 10,361 (1997) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)) (interim, effective Apr. 1, 1997)(describing the review process). Therefore, because the Immigration Judge had no authority over the apprehension, custody, and detention of arriving aliens, consideration of the respondent’s bond request was improper. Accordingly, the decision of the Immigration Judge will be vacated, and the record will be returned to the Immigration Court for any further action, as necessary. 

### ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s decision is vacated, and the record is returned to the Immigration Court.

20
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 28 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 28 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER 21 MC 102 (AKH)

LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER

SITE LITIGATION

LUIS K. ENCALADA, 07-CV-5354 (AKH)

Plaintiff, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

-against100 CHURCH LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby enters an appearance as counsel

for Defendants 100 CHURCH LLC and ZAR REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. n/k/a

SAPIR REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. in the above-captioned action and all future

correspondence and papers filed or serviced in connection with the above-captioned action are to

be directed to the undersigned.

Dated: New York, New York

September 10, 2007

Yours etc.,

HARRIS BEACH PLLC

A ttorneys for Defendant

100 CHURCH LLC and ZAR REALTY

MANAGEMENT CORP. n/k/a SAPIR

REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP.

/5/

Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG-7062)

100 Wall Street

New York, NY 10005

212 687-0100

212 687-0659 (Fax)

Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on September 10, 2007, I caused the following document

to be electronically via the Courts ECF system:

1. Notice of Appearance (of Defendants 100 Church LLC and Zar Realty

Management Corp. n/kla Sapir Realty Management Corp.).

The undersigned further certifies that on September 10, 2007, I caused the aforesaid

documents to be served via First Class Mail upon the following:

Paul Napoli, Esq.

Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP

115 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10006

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, P.C.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Law Offices of Gregory J. Cannata

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Liaison Counselfor Plaintiffs

James E. Tyrrell, Esq.

Joseph Hopkins, Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

1 Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Thomas Egan, Esq.

Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLP

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006

Liaison Counsellor the Defendants

Dated: September 10, 2007

Is!

Stanley Goos

Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
Pursuant

To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Intelsat, Ltd. (the Company) hereby certifies that to such officers
knowledge, the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: March 20, 2008 |  | /s/    JEFFREY
FREIMARK                 
|                     |  | Jeffrey Freimark Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT

55 WATER STREET, 19th FLOOR

NEW YORK, NY 10041-0099

November 9, 2018

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOIA Matters

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1155 21st Street, NW Room 2205 

Washington, DC 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request

Dear Staff:

Pursuant to Section 145.9 of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the 

“Commission”) Regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, DTCC Data 

Repository (U.S.) LLC (“DDR”) requests that the DTCC Global Privacy Policy being submitted 

to the Commission and the information contained therein (together, the “Documents”), be 

afforded confidential treatment until further notice under the Freedom of Information Act and the 

Commission's Regulations.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact the undersigned at 212-855-

2417.

Very truly yours,

Mark S. Bramante

DDR Chief Compliance Officer
#### *In re*DOWAGIAC MANUFACTURING CO.

Submitted January 25, 1909.

Decided February 1, 1909.

Petition for leave to file petition for mandamus tp the Circuit Court of Appeals directing it to reinstate an appeal from the Circuit Court which had already been decided by such Court of Appeals, denied.

*Mr. Fred L. Chappell, Mr.*Morrison. *I). Waite*and *Mr. Edmund Wetmore*for petitioner.

*Per Curiam:*

Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus denied.
Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certifications

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of United Financial Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |  |  |                                                     
|----------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|            |  |  |  | /s/ Richard B. Collins                              
|            |  |  |  | Richard B. Collins                                  
|            |  |  |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer     
|            |  | 
|            |  |  |  | /s/ Mark A. Roberts                                 
|            |  |  |  | Mark A. Roberts                                     
|            |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|            |  | 
|May 5, 2011 |  |  |  |
Exhibit
32.2




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








I,
James J. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment
No. 2 to the Annual Report of Houston American Energy Corp. on Form 10-K/A for
the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Houston American Energy
Corp.








By:  /s/
      James J. JacobsName:
      James J. JacobsTitle:   Chief
      Financial OfficerDated:
      October 2, 2008