alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7384

MEJAY T. MCKINNEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (4:05-cv-03147-MBS) Submitted: November 13, 2006 Decided: December 13, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mejay T. McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mejay T. McKinney seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 McKinney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McKinney’s motion for a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal, and deny McKinney’s motion to appoint counsel. 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
Robert D. MORRIS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-9552.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

*192Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Charles A. TAVARES, petitioner, v. BRIDGELOAN INVESTORS, INC.

No. 17-1714.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
In Re Jaron BRICE, petitioner.

No. 18-7777.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused *1355this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
Josand FARMER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9540.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Albert Miklos KUN, petitioner, v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-7911.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Bohdan G. SENIW, petitioner, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY, et al.

No. 18-5019.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# L_2013044EN.01000101.xml

| 15.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 44/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 44/1

---

Information on the date of signature of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Kiribati

On 9 November 2012 and 15 January 2013 respectively, the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Kiribati signed the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement.

The Protocol accordingly applies provisionally from 16 September 2012 pursuant to Article 15 thereof.

---
Abigail ARROYO, petitioner, v. Angel M. TORRES-SANCHEZ, et al.

No. 18-946.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Shannon LANCASTER, petitioner, v. James RUANE.

No. 18-7942.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

*1562Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Shaidon BLAKE, petitioner, v. Brian FISH, et al.

No. 18-7273.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Victor ROBLERO, petitioner, v. Ralph DIAZ, Acting Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

No. 18-8340.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ERICA FRAZIER and JIMMY LOUIS,

Appellants,

v.

AZURE ESTATES FL TC, LP,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-250

[June 3, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Paige Hardy Gillman, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 50-2109-AP000200-CA-XXXX-MB and 50-2019-CC-015252-XXX-MB.

Malik D. Leigh of Watson Leigh, P.A., Pompano Beach, for appellants.

Katina M. Hardee of Fowler White Burnett, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Mark Francis HONISH, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-5135.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the annual report on form 10-K of Empire Global Corp.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Sharad
Mistry, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

Date: April 4, 2013                  By: /s/ Sharad Mistry
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Sharad Mistry
                                         Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 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 ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of iParty Corp (the “Company”) hereby certifies that theCompany’s amended annual report on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December25, 2004 (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 theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 27, 2005 | /s/ SAL PERISANO                                    |   |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               | Sal Perisano                                        |
| * *           | *Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
William Robert DIXON, petitioner, v. Robert LeGRAND, Warden, et al.

No. 18-5024.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 14.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We
  consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
  Form S-8 (Nos. 333-13178, 333-14224, 333-119938 and 333-124241) of our report
  dated March 4, 2005 (except for notes 31 and 32 for which the date is December
  19, 2005) with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Thomson included
  in its amended Annual Report (Form 20-F/A) for the year ended December 31, 2004,
  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|MAZARS & GUERARD 
MAZARS/s/ Thierry de Bailliencourt
--------------------------------------------------
Thierry de Bailliencourt | BARBIER FRINAUT & AUTRES 
ERNST & YOUNG/s/  Jérôme Guirauden
-----------------------------------------
Jérôme Guirauden
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Paris,
  France December 19, 2005
Jeffery Day RIEBER, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 18-5103.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-11182

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS NEVAREZ-GONZALEZ,

also known as Jesus Nevarez,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CR-69-1-Y

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Nevarez-Gonzalez appeals the sentence imposed by the

district court following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal

reentry into the United States following deportation, a violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Nevarez-Gonzalez challenges the court’s

characterization of his prior Nebraska conviction for possession

of marijuana as an aggravated felony and the concomitant 16-level 
No. 98-11182

-2-

increase in his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2). 

This argument is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in United

States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 22-98V

UNPUBLISHED

MICHELLE DAVIS, on behalf of her

minor child, A.D.,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: October 3, 2022

Withdrawal of petition; Order 

concluding proceedings

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On February 1, 2022, Michelle Davis filed a petition for compensation on behalf 

of her minor child, A.D., under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34.

2 Petitioner alleged that A.D. suffered injuries after 

receiving a human papillomavirus vaccination on February 18, 2019. ECF No. 1.

Because a decision had not been issued within the time specified in Vaccine 

Rule 10(b), a notice issued advising that “that the petitioner may withdraw the petition 

under section 300aa—21(b) of this title or the petitioner may choose under section 

300aa—21(b) of this title to have the petition remain before the special master.” 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa—12(g). On October 1, 2022, Petitioner timely filed a notice to withdraw 

the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—21(b). 

In light of Petitioner’s election to withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa—21(b) (promulgated as Vaccine Rule 10(d)), Petitioner’s request to withdraw the

petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that 

proceedings “on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment 

“on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk’s Office.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available 

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, 

I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
2

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28837-28838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10057]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; R43/R44: Technologies 
for Assessment of Risk and Early Diagnosis of T1D.
    Date: July 11, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy Two, 6707 
Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Lan Tian, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDDK, National 
Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-
5452, (301) 496-7050, [email protected].

[[Page 28838]]

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 5, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-10057 Filed 5-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

I, Arthur Zafiropoulo, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

•      the Quarterly Report ofUltratech, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2005fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

•      the information contained in suchQuarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of Ultratech, Inc.

 
| By:                               | /s/  ARTHUR ZAFIROPOULO |   |   |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Name:  Arthur Zafiropoulo         |                    |
| Title:  *Chief Executive Officer* |                    |

 

I, Bruce Wright, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

•      the Quarterly Report ofUltratech, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2005fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

•      the information contained in suchQuarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of Ultratech, Inc.

 
| By:                               | /s/  BRUCE WRIGHT |   |   |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------|--------|--------|
| Name:  Bruce Wright               |              |
| Title:  *Chief Financial Officer* |              |

 

----

*Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Ultratech, Inc. and will be retained by Ultratech, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
J.B.R., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-192.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# L_2012143EN.01000101.xml

| 2.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 143/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 143/1

---

Notice concerning the entry into force, between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation, of the Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis

The abovementioned Arrangement (1) was signed in Brussels on 22 September 2011. As the procedures necessary for the entry into force of this Arrangement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation have been completed on 26 March 2012, this Arrangement entered into force, as far as the Swiss Confederation is concerned, in accordance with Article 7 of the Arrangement, on 1 May 2012.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 103, 13.4.2012, p. 4.

1

---
Johnny M. YOUNG, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 18-8422.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama denied.
Gerald Lynn BOSTOCK, petitioner, v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA.

No. 17-1618.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari granted. The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
# C_2015245EN.01002201.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/22

---

Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Klemme v Commission

(Case T-294/14) (1)

1

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 245/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Klemme AG (Lutherstadt Eisleben, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, M. Ringel, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

| 3. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 4. | Klemme AG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Klemme AG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 5. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

1

---