alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert KENNEDY, Jr., a/k/a Mosquito, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-6546.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 6, 2010.

Decided: June 15, 2010.

*265Robert Kennedy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph W.H. Mott, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Kennedy, Jr., seeks to appeal four orders of the district court: an August 4, 2008 order denying Kennedy’s motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), a February 3, 2009 order denying Kennedy’s second § 3582(c)(2) motion as an untimely motion for reconsideration, and two subsequent orders refusing to reopen or extend the appeal period for the August 4, 2008 order and the February 3, 2009 order. We dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.

Kennedy had ten business days after entry of each of the orders in question to note his appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (2008); *
      *see United States v. Alvarez,*210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir.2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); *United States v. Reyes,*759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985). The district court properly found that Kennedy’s efforts to reopen or extend the appeal period as to the August 4, 2008 order were untimely and beyond the excusable neglect period. The court also found, as to the February 3, 2009 order, that Kennedy’s proffered justification for his late notice of appeal did not constitute excusable neglect warranting extension of the ten-day appeal period.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and agree that Kennedy has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause justifying a relaxation of the ten-day appeal period of Rule 4(b)(1)(A). *See generally United States v. Urutyan,*564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir.2009); *United States v. Mitchell,*518 F.3d 740, 750 (10th Cir.2008). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal to the extent it seeks review of the court’s August 4, 2008 and February 3, 2009 orders. As to the district court’s two orders entered February 18, 2009, and March 18, 2009, refusing to extend or reopen the appeal period, we find no reversible error and affirm.

Kennedy’s appeal is dismissed in part and affirmed in part. We deny Kennedy’s request to place his appeal in abeyance. 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 PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.*

Rule 4, Fed. R.App. P., has been amended, effective December 1, 2009, to allow fourteen calendar days to note an appeal in a criminal case. However, the amendment is inapplicable to this appeal.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Voxware, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Scott J. Yetter, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

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

|                                    | /s/ Scott J. Yetter           | 
|----------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|Dated:     September 28,
      2009 | Scott
      J. Yetter        
|                                    | Chief
      Executive Officer

---
H. Res. 1550 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 22, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes, with the 

Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 

amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without 

intervention of any point of order except those arising under 

clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the 

Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the 

House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall 

be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
2 

•HRES 1550 EH 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms
S-3D Registration Statement Nos. 333-40211 and 333-130721) and in the
Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Registration Statements Nos. 333-60089,
333-128278, and 333-109018) pertaining to certain stock award, stock option,
stock incentive and stock bonus plans of Community Bank Shares of Indiana, Inc.,
of our report dated March 28, 2008, appearing in this annual report Form 10-K
for Community Bank Shares of Indiana, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2007.










/s/
      Crowe Chizek and Company LLCLouisville,
      KentuckyMarch
      28, 2008
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



I, Gary D. MacDonald, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 2)  of GBS Enterprises Incorporated for the fiscal quarter ended June
    30, 2012 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 Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 2)  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of GBS Enterprises Incorporated.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: May 1, 2013 | /s/Gary D. MacDonald           
|----------------- | -------------------------------
|                  | Gary D. MacDonald              
|                  | Interim Chief Executive Officer
|                  | (Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Federal Register: November 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 69745]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17no05-42]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, December 9, 2005.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
Surveillance matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-22880 Filed 11-15-05; 12:20 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar VALDEZ-VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-40939

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*396Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cesar Valdez-Valdez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Valdez-Valdez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1




SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION






In connection with the Quarterly Report of Palmdale Executive Homes, Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Suzette M. Major, President/Chief Executive Offcer and Director 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 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.






Date: August 16, 2010




By: /s/ SUZETTE M. MAJOR


___________________________


Suzette M. Major


President/Chief Executive Officer and Director
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SCOTTIE RANDOLPH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-35700 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01683-BAT 

ORDER*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 6, 2020**

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed for the reasons given by Chief Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida 

in his order filed June 25, 2018.

AFFIRMED.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Kenneth BRINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6705.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 27, 2010.

Eugene Kenneth Brinson, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Kenneth Brinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitu*813tional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brinson 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.*
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: G. H. MILLER AND COMPANY; GILBERT H. MILLER; HOWARD RANDOLPH, D/B/A 

RANDOLPH AND COMPANY; REFRIGERATED PRODUCTS, INC.; J.W. HARDING; CENTRAL IOWA 

POULTRY AND EGG COMPANY; JOHN H. SNOWGREN; ALLEN HEADLEE, D/B/A HEADLEE PRODUCE 

COMPANY; E.E. HUMMEL AND K. HUMMEL, D/B/A HUMMEL PRODUCE COMPANY; ALBERT SCHIRM, 

D/B/A SCHIRM PRODUCE COMPANY; LEO HAGEN; A.L. MYRICK, D/B/A MARKET PRODUCE 

COMPANY; LEWIS R. VAN SANT AND ROY ROUNTREE, D/B/A DATED EGG COMPANY 

DOCKET NUMBER: 60 

DATE: DECEMBER 31, 1956 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERING AND REARGUMENT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: G. H. Miller and Company, et al., Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 60 

Order Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration and Reargument 

On September 25, 1956, a decision was made in this proceeding under the 

Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. Chapter 1) finding that the respondents 

violated the act and an order was entered prescribing sanctions (15 Agric. Dec. 

1015 (15 A.D. 1015)). On October 4, 1956, the respondents were granted an 

extension of time for the filing of a petition for reconsideration and the order 

of September 25, 1956, was stayed pending action upon the petition for 

reconsideration to be filed. On October 31, 1956, the respondents filed a 62-

page petition for reconsideration and reargument. The complainant filed a reply 

to the petition and the respondents filed an answer to the complainant's reply. 

The proceeding has been lengthy and exhaustive, particularly with respect to 

argument. The petition is not persuasive that additional argument should be had 

or that any material change should be made in the decision or order entered. 

Accordingly, the stay order of October 4, 1956, is vacated and the order of 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
<PAGE>

                                   EXIBIT 31.1
                           RULE 13(a)-14(a)/15d-14(a)
                                  CERTIFICATION


       I, Frank Galuppo, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report of TTR Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K,
for the year ended December 31, 2003;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

March 29, 2004




                           /s/ FRANK GALUPPO
                           ---------------------------

                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
**EXHIBIT INDEX**

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Registrant certifies that itmeets all of the requirements for the effectiveness of this Registration Statement pursuant to Rule 485(b) under the Securities Act of 1933and has duly caused this Post-Effective Amendment No. 138 to the Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Boston, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on the 27th day of August 2013.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this Registration Statement has been signed below by the following personsin the capacities and on the dates indicated.

POWER OF ATTORNEY

	We, the undersigned Directors or Trustees, as the case may be, of the following investment companies:

in addition to any other investment company for which Fidelity Management & Research Company ("FMR") or an affiliate acts as investment adviser and for which the undersigned individuals serve as Directors or Trustees (collectively, the "Funds"), hereby revoke all previous powers of attorney we have given to sign and otherwise act in our names and behalf in matters involving any investment companyfor which FMR or an affiliate acts as investment adviser and hereby constitute and appoint Thomas C. Bogle, Joseph R. Fleming, John V.O'Hanlon, Robert W. Helm and Anthony H. Zacharski, each of them singly, our true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution, and with full power to each of them, to sign for us and in our names in the appropriate capacities, all Registration Statements ofthe Funds on Form N-1A, or any successors thereto, any and all subsequent Amendments, Pre-Effective Amendments, or Post-EffectiveAmendments to said Registration Statements or any successors thereto, and any supplements or other instruments in connection therewith,and generally to do all such things in our names and behalf in connection therewith as said attorneys-in-fact deem necessary or appropriate,to comply with the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, and all related requirements of theSecurities and Exchange Commission.  We hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorneys-in-fact or their substitutes may do or cause tobe done by virtue hereof.  This power of attorney is effective for all documents filed on or after August 1, 2013.

	WITNESS our hands on this first day of August 2013.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: WALKER & CO. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 201 

DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 201 

Name: Walker & Co. 

Effective on November 3, 1972. 

Order 

Effective upon the date of service of this order upon the respondent Walker & 

Co., it shall cease and desist from: (1) failing to treat and deal with 

customers' funds as belonging to such customers as required by section 4d of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d); and (2) failing to prepare and maintain 

(a) an accurate record as of the close of the market on each business day of the 

amount of money, securities and property which must be in segregated account in 

order to comply with the requirements of section 4d of the Commodity Exchange 

Act (7 U.S.C. 6d) and the regulations thereunder, and (b) such other books and 

records relating to dealing in commodity futures in such form and manner and for 

such period as may be required by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

A copy of this Decision and Order shall be served on each of the parties. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

NOV 3 1972 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        141


        <NAME>      Fidelity Southeast Asia Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

oct-31-1997


<PERIOD-END>

oct-31-1997


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

335,800


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

261,739


<RECEIVABLES>

18,077


<ASSETS-OTHER>

7,798


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

287,614


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

5,096


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

3,671


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

8,767


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

386,752


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

29,199


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

51,431


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

753


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

(33,994)


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

(74,664)


<NET-ASSETS>

278,847


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

8,354


<INTEREST-INCOME>

1,522


<OTHER-INCOME>

(845)


<EXPENSES-NET>

7,725


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

1,306


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

(28,617)


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

(92,384)


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

(119,695)


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

8,457


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

19,898


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

11,475


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

35,591


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

1,885


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

(476,499)


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

4,730


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

21,952


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

4,465


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

7,741


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

584,686


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

14.690


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .040


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

(4.620)


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .170


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

 .400


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

9.550


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

132


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>