alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7859

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JIMMY O’NEAL BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief

District Judge. (CR-98-189; CA-01-410-5)

Submitted: May 10, 2006 Decided: June 8, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy O’Neal Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy O’Neal Brown 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. See 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 Brown

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 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            MARINE EXPLORATION, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the annual report on Form
10-K of Marine Exploration, Inc. for the period ending June 30, 2009:

(1)  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
     aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Marine
     Exploration, Inc.


/s/ Paul D Enright
--------------------------
Paul D Enright
Chief Financial Officer
September 28, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Marine Exploration, Inc. and
will be retained by Marine Exploration, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5195 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5195

   To suspend temporarily the duty on Red 30-kilovolt high-frequency 
                     cable, 30 square millimeters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2008

Mrs. Tauscher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on Red 30-kilovolt high-frequency 
                     cable, 30 square millimeters.

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

SECTION 1. RED 30-KILOVOLT HIGH-FREQUENCY CABLE, 30 SQUARE MILLIMETERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Red 30-kilovolt     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          high-frequency                                                     31/2011.......
                          cable, 30 square
                          millimeters. Helu
                          part number
                          700375, type KH-
                          SO-2XCY (provided
                          for in subheading
                          8544.60.20)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**
**Exhibit 13.1**

**Certification by the Principal Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer ofPepper Food Service Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that, to such officer’s knowledge: 

 
1.
The accompanying Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2018(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 andresults of operations of the Company. 

Date: April 30, 2019

 
/s/ Kunio Ichinose                     Kunio Ichinose Chief Executive Officer **
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 514 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 514

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 16150 Aviation Loop Drive in Brooksville, Florida, as the ``Sergeant 
      Lea Robert Mills Brooksville Aviation Branch Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2007

  Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida (for herself, Ms. Corrine Brown of 
 Florida, Mr. Meek of Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart 
of Florida, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Keller of Florida, 
Mr. Mack, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Mica, Mr. 
 Stearns, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, 
 Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Feeney, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Klein of 
Florida, Mr. Mahoney of Florida, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Castor, Mr. Weldon of 
 Florida, and Mr. Bilirakis) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 16150 Aviation Loop Drive in Brooksville, Florida, as the ``Sergeant 
      Lea Robert Mills Brooksville Aviation Branch Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT LEA ROBERT MILLS BROOKSVILLE AVIATION BRANCH POST 
              OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 16150 Aviation Loop Drive in Brooksville, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sergeant Lea Robert Mills Brooksville 
Aviation Branch Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Lea Robert Mills Brooksville Aviation Branch Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
BROWN v. KROGER CO., et al.

No. 257A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Faith Herndon, for Vonda Kay Brown.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of July 2005 by Defendants to Strike:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of August 2005."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7658

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM JOHN CLARK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (2:05-cr-00044-JPB-JSK-2; 2:05-cr-00047-

JPB-JSK-1; 2:08-cv-00118-JPB-JSK)

Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William John Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William John Clark 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 appealability. 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 (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 Clark 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
HASHEMI v. TOWN OF CARY

No. COA04-128.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 20, 2005.

Certification Date October 10, 2005.

Appeal from Wake (02CVS17043).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001018525
<NAME> XLCONNECT SOLUTIONS, INC.
                                                               Exhibit 27.1


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           17,232
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    27,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1,154
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 46,949
<PP&E>                                           16,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                    8,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   79,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            16,755
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                            166
<OTHER-SE>                                       57,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     79,920
<SALES>                                         135,703
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                135,703
<CGS>                                            91,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    91,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 35,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (375)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10,387
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5,417
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4,970
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4,970
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .29


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Jeremy Cheron GIBSON.

No. 352P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Lemuel W. Hinton, for Jeremy Cheron Gibson.

Leonard G. Green, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of July 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 6th day of October 2005."
STATE of North Carolina v. Edwards Dean BELTON II.

No. 542P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Edward Dean Belton, Pro Se.

*880William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 16th day of September 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
STATE v. HYMAN.

No. COA04-1058.

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Bertie (01CRS50423)

Case reported without published opinion No error in part; remanded.
In re L.G. appealed by Respondents, Jason & Belinda Genwright.

No. 57P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2005.

Jason W. Genwright, Pro Se, for Jason & Belinda Genwright.

Belinda A. Genwright, Pro Se, for L.G.

E. Marshall Woodall, Lillington, for Harnett County DSS.

Eddie Winstead, III, Sanford, for Guardian Ad Litem.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of January 2005 by Respondents (parents of the minor child) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 6th day of April 2005."
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Marc J. GreeneMarc J. GreeneDate: August 14, 2008
    President and CEO/s/ Rachel MarshallRachel MarshallDate:  August 14, 2008
    CFO 22
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          41,715
<SECURITIES>                                    25,748
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,292
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,024
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,654
<PP&E>                                           9,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,610
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       119,902
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,039
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,638
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   790
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       212
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,533)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,533)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.31)


</TABLE>
* 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. 07-50297

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LORENZO VILLALOBOS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-755-10

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Lorenzo Villalobos has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Villalobos has filed a response. The record is insufficiently

developed to allow consideration at this time of Villalobos’s claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th

Cir. 2006). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50297

2

Villalobos’s response 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.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

[KPMG Logo]

          Chartered Accountants

          Ninety South Mall
          Cork
          Ireland

                       Report of independent accountants
                 To the board of directors of Ridgeview Limited

We have audited the financial statements of the Irish Branch of Ridgeview
Limited ("the financial statements") for the two years ended 31 December 1997
which have been prepared by branch management in accordance with the basis of
preparation set out below. These branch financial statements are not attached to
this report.

Basis of preparation

The financial statements have been prepared solely for the purposes of
incorporating the results of the Irish branch into the financial statements of
Ridgeview Limited.

The financial statements, which are prepared in Irish punts, have been prepared
under the historical cost convention and in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles in the Republic of Ireland.

Respective responsibilities of directors and auditors

The company's directors and branch management are responsible for the
preparation of the financial statements. The directors are required to prepare
the financial statements for each financial year which fairly present the state
of affairs and of the profit and loss for that period. It is our responsibility
to form an independent opinion, based on our audit, on those statements and to
report our opinion to you.

Basis of opinion

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards issued by the
Auditing Practices Board of the Republic of Ireland, which do not vary
substantially from those of the United States. An audit includes an examination,
on a test basis, of evidence relevant to the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements. It also includes an assessment of the significant
estimates and judgements made by branch management in the preparation of the
financial statements, and of whether the accounting policies are appropriate to
the branch's circumstances, consistently applied and adequately disclosed.
<PAGE>   2

We planned and performed our audits so as to obtain all the information and 
explanations which we considered necessary in order to provide us with 
sufficient evidence to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements 
are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or other 
irregularity or error. In forming our opinion we also evaluated the overall 
adequacy of the presentation of the information in the financial statements.

Opinion

In our opinion the financial statements which we audited, none of which are 
attached to this report, present fairly, in all material respects, the 
financial position of the branch at 31 December 1996 and 31 December 1997 and 
of the profit for the branch for the years ended 31 December 1996 and 31 
December 1997 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in 
Ireland.



/s/ KPMG

Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditors                                          Date: 4 March 1998