alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6 5**  **6 2** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

─ Appell ee ,
v. RECARDO DOMICEKE BLAKNEY , Defendant
─ Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Dis trict of South Carolina , at F l orence . R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:06

- cr - 00584

- RBH

- 1; 4:11

- cv - 70024

- RBH )

Submitted : August 25, 2011 Decided: September 16, 2011

Before WYNN and DIAZ , Circuit Judge s , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.

D ismiss ed by unpublished per curiam opinion
.
Recardo Domiceke Blakney , Appellant Pro Se
. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence , S o u th Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Recardo Domiceke Blakney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfie s 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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 constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blakney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts3 and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NorthStar Realty Finance Corp. (the "Company") for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David T. Hamamoto, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



Date: August 5, 2010

By:

/s/ DAVID T. HAMAMOTO David T. Hamamoto Chief Executive Officer


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

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
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

86

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Northridge Ventures Inc. on Form 10-Q
for  the quarter ended August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Caroline  Rechia, Chief
Executive  Officer,  President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer  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:

(1)     The  Report  fully  complies  with  the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  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.



Date:  October  7,  2010                By:  /s/  Caroline  Rechia
                                             Caroline Rechia
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                             Chief Financial Officer and
                                             Principal Accounting Officer
To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
the Smith Barney Oregon Municipals Fund:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Smith Barney Oregon Municipals Fund (the "Fund") for the
year ended April 30, 1998, we considered its internal control,
including control activities for safeguarding securities, in
order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply
with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on
the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection
of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is
subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by
employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.  However, we noted no matters involving the internal
control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding
securities that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



June 12, 1998
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4980 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on THV. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2008 

Mr. RAMSTAD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on THV. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. THV. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.62 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 THV) is amended by striking the date in the effective pe7 riod column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
VYAS v. CARRIAGE PARK LTD., et al.

No. 513A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2004.

Mark A. Finkelstein, Raleigh, for Vyas.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of December 2004 by Defendants for extension of time to file brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Defendants shall have up to and including the 22nd day of December 2004 to file and serve their brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 7th day of December 2004."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7228
GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; WARDEN WATERS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Edward S. Northrop, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-807-N) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guy Lancaster Richmond, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Barry Chazen, MEYERS, BILL INGSLEY, SHIPLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, Riverdale, Maryland; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Richard M. Kastendieck, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Richmond v. Prison Health Servs. , No. CA-95-807-N (D. Md. July 31, 1995). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6768

REESE MARVIN BAKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH P. SACCHET; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-518-WMN)

Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reese Marvin Baker, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Reese Marvin Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Baker v. Sacchet, No. CA-01-518-WMN (D. Md. Apr.

17, 2002). 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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XI, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and
Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our
knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Leo F. Wells, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III      
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 18, 2010         
|                       
|/s/ Douglas P. Williams
|Douglas P. Williams    
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 18, 2010
# L_2016216EN.01002901.xml

| 11.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 216/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 216/29

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2016/1177 of 12 July 2016 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application, of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Principality of Monaco providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 195 of 20 July 2016
  )

The publication of Decision (EU) 2016/1177 is to be considered null and void.

---
STATE v. Alvin Terrill FOSTER, Jr.

No. 104PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 28, 2004.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State.

George E. Kelly, III, Raleigh, for Foster.

Seth H. Jaffe, Raleigh, for ACLU.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of July 2004 by American Civil Liberties Union for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 28th day of July 2004."
| If      to the Partnership: | Equistar      Chemicals, LP |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|

|   | 1221      McKinney Street |
|--------|---------------------------|

|   | Houston,      Texas 77252-2583 |
|--------|--------------------------------|

|   |                                       |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Attention:  General      Counsel |

|   | Facsimile      Number:  (713) 309-4718 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|

| If      to Indemnitor: | Millennium      Petrochemicals Inc.  |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                   | 1221      McKinney Street       |
|                   | Houston,      Texas 77252-2583  |

|   | Attention:  General      Counsel |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

|   | Facsimile      Number:  (713) 309-4718 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|

|   | [Remainder      of Page Intentionally Left Blank] |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
HomeOcean Facts

# Can penguins fly?

## No, technically penguins cannot fly.

A group of Antarctica's Gentoo penguins follow a well-worn path to their nesting area from the sea where they go to feed. 

Penguins are birds, so they do have wings. However, the wing  structures of penguins are evolved for swimming, rather than flying in the  traditional sense. Penguins swim underwater at speeds of up to 15 to 25 miles per  hour. 

As adept swimmers, penguins spend a lot of time in the water. Some penguins spend up to 75 percent of their lives in the water. Like other birds, penguins do lay eggs and they  raise their chicks on land.

All penguins live in the Southern Hemisphere.

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - Adèlie Penguins (video)
          - **Animals of the Ice: Emperor Penguins (video)

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
Avery RIGGSBEE, Employee v. James R. TAYLOR, Employer, and Interstate Insurance Services Group.

No. 17P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

Avery M. Riggsbee, Pro Se.

Tracey L. Jones, Raleigh, for Taylor et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 13th day of January 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. §1350





(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





I, Travis
Cai, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of China-Biotics,
Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based upon a
review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,
2009 of the Registrant (the “Report”):





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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
Registrant.





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




/s/
      Travis CaiTravis
      CaiChief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      11, 2010
Brenda PARKER v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

No. 040726.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

March 3, 2005.

Norman Lamson, Charlottesville, for appellant.

Richard B. Smith, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. (Jerry W. Kilgore, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

PER CURIAM.

Brenda Parker was convicted in the Circuit Court of Gloucester County for operating a food manufacturing plant that had not been inspected by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services. *See* Code § 3.1-398.1. We awarded her an appeal to consider her following assignments of error: 1. "The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the charge was of an offense known to the law, and that the lower courts had subject matter jurisdiction." 2. "If the Court of Appeals did not err as specified in No. 1, then it erred in concluding that the claim *926that a summons of violating 3.1-418/3.1-398.1 on its face violates the Fourth Amendment does not address subject matter jurisdiction, and can be raised for the first time on appeal."

We have considered these assignments of error and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, *Parker v. Commonwealth,*42 Va.App. 358, 592 S.E.2d 358 (2004), we will affirm the judgment appealed from.

*Affirmed.*
|   | 1. | The      quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Douglas Feirstein         |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Douglas      Feirstein             |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer       |   |
| (Principal      Executive Officer) |   |
| Dated:      May 14, 2010           |   |

|   | 1. | The      quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Daniel Brauser            |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Daniel      Brauser                |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer       |   |
| (Principal      Financial Officer) |   |
| Dated:      May 14, 2010           |   |

----
STATE v. James R. HARRIS.

No. 462P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 29, 2004.

Amos G. Tyndall, Chapel Hill, for Harris.

James E. Hardin, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

"The order entered in this matter on 2nd day of September 2004, staying Issuance of the mandate of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pending further order of this Court is herby dissolved. The Court of Appeals shall enter judgment and issue its mandate in accordance with N.C.R.A.P. 32(b) on 4 October 2004.

> Execution on the mandate and enforcement of the judgment is hereby stayed pursuant to N.C.R.A.P. 23(b) pending further review by this Court.

> By order of the Court in Conference this the 29th day of September 2004."
Independent Auditors' Consent




To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Small Cap Core Fund, Inc.:
We consent to the incorporation by reference, in this Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information, of our report dated February 8,
2001, on the statement of assets and liabilities for the Smith Barney
Small Cap Core Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") as of December 31, 2000 and the
related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements
of changes in net assets for each of the years in the two-year period
then ended and the financial highlights for each of the years in the
five-year period then ended. These financial statements and financial
highlights and our report thereon are included in the Annual Report of
the Fund as filed on Form N-30D.
We also consent to the references to our firm under the headings
"Financial highlights" in the Prospectus and "Auditors" in the Statement
of Additional Information.



KPMG LLP
New York, New York
April 24, 2001
Page