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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7351

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRYANT ELLIOTT DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:03-cr-00412-WDQ)

Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 8, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Elliott Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Elliot Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s

June 26, 2006 order dismissing without prejudice his successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion filed on May 30, 2006. 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 Davis 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
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2017113DE.01006501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 29.4.2017 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 113/65 |

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses (EU) 2017/101 der Europäischen Zentralbank vom 11. Januar 2017 zur Änderung des Beschlusses EZB/2014/40 über die Umsetzung des dritten Programms zum Ankauf gedeckter Schuldverschreibungen (EZB/2017/2)

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 16 vom 20. Januar 2017](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2017_016_R_TOC)
)

Auf Seite 54:

Anstatt:

„Artikel 1

Änderung

Dem Artikel 2 des Beschlusses EZB/2014/40 wird der folgende Punkt 7 angefügt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‚7. | Ankäufe nominaler gedeckter Schuldverschreibungen mit negativer Endfälligkeitsrendite (oder mit einer Rendite im schlechtesten Fall) in Höhe von oder über dem Zinssatz für die Einlagefazilität sind im erforderlichen Umfang zulässig.‘“ |

muss es heißen:

„Artikel 1

Änderung

Dem Artikel 2 des Beschlusses EZB/2014/40 wird der folgende Punkt 7 angefügt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‚7. | Ankäufe nominaler gedeckter Schuldverschreibungen mit negativer Endfälligkeitsrendite (oder mit einer Rendite im schlechtesten Fall) in Höhe von oder über dem Zinssatz für die Einlagefazilität sind zulässig. Ankäufe nominaler gedeckter Schuldverschreibungen mit negativer Endfälligkeitsrendite (oder mit einer Rendite im schlechtesten Fall) unter dem Zinssatz für die Einlagefazilität sind im erforderlichen Umfang zulässig.‘“ |

---
BALD HEAD ASS'N v. CURNIN

No. COA05-639

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Brunswick (01CVS695).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed; petition denied; motion denied.
CONCORD ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. v. FREEMAN.

No. COA05-550.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from Cabarrus (04CVD976)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

TELANETIX, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Telanetix, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard M. Ono, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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: May 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Richard M. Ono     
|                   |  | Richard M. Ono         
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ELIJAH BANKSTON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 3

- 0421

[ June 8, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Andrew L. Siegel

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17000514CF10A

.

Elijah Bankston

, Milton , pro se.

No appearance required for appellee

.

P ER C URI A M

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J.

, M AY and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
H. R. 5478 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To provide for the continued minting and issuance of certain $1 coins in 2008. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That clause 

(i) of section 5112(n)(1)(B) of title 31, United States Code (as in 

effect on the day before the date of the enactment of Public Law 

110–82) shall continue in effect, notwithstanding the amendment 

made by section 3 of Public Law 110–82, until the effective date 

of the amendment made by section 2 of such Public Law. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
BROOKS v. CAPSTAR CORPORATION.

No. 110A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 3, 2005.

John Morris, Michelle Sain Langdon, Roberta S. Sperry, Charlotte, for Capstar Corp., et al.

Vernon Sumwalt, Bob Bollinger, Charlotte, for NC Academy of Trial Lawyers.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of September 2005 by Plaintiff to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of October 2005."
Exhibit 32.1













CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Scientific Energy, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stanley Chan, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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, 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:  May 19, 2010



|                                                              |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Stanley Chan                                              |  | 
|Stanley Chan                                                  |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer           |  | 
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |  |
##### 



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, Ayman A. Sabi, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Roadhouse Grill,
Inc. (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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual
period ended April 25, 2004 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: August 6, 2004/s/  Ayman A. SabiAyman A. SabiPresident and
Chief Executive Officer F-40
```

Exhibit 31 - CERTIFICATION

I, Charles Giannetto, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of TS&B Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report; and

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

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures for the issuer and have:

        (i) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
        material information relating to the issuer is made known to me,
        particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being
        prepared;

        (ii) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer's disclosure controls and
        procedures as of June 30, 2003 ["Evaluation Date"]; and

        (iii) Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
        the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
        Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons
fulfilling the equivalent function):

        (i) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
        controls which could adversely affect the issuer's ability to record,
        process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
        issuer's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls (none were
        so noted); and

        (ii) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
        other employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal
        controls (none were so noted); and

6. I have indicated in the report whether or not there were significant changes
in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.

Date: 10/14/03

/s/ Charles Giannetto
-----------------------------
    Charles Giannetto
    Chief Financial Officer
```
STATE v. SMITH.

No. COA04-1331.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from New Hanover (03CRS2455, 03CRS2437, 03CRS2438, 03CRS2121).

Case without published opinion. No error.
GLOVER CONST., CO., INC. v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP.

No. COA05-525.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Perquimans (02CVS118).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the annual report of SeaChange International, Inc.
(the “ Company ”) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “ Report ”), I, William C. Styslinger, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:




(1)
            
            The
      Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K 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.


/s/ WILLIAMC. STYSLINGER, IIIWilliam C. Styslinger,
    IIIChief Executive
  Officer,Chairman of the Board and
      Director


April 9, 2010




This certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission with this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such
Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.




---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

November 14, 2013

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2013-3045

DAVID NOBLE, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent.

Decided: September 18, 2013 

Nonprecedential Opinion

______________________ 

Please make the following changes: 

Page 3, lines 26-27, change “granted his request to try to 

litigate it” to --treated the argument--. 

Page 7, line 19, change “prior declaration addressing the 

issue” to --declaration recounting his pre-hearing experience with and research into constructive-suspension 

claims--.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,133
<INVENTORY>                                     19,149
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,154
<PP&E>                                          96,150
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,949
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,597
<BONDS>                                         33,772
<COMMON>                                            14
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,134
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,756
<SALES>                                        179,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               179,068
<CGS>                                          104,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    22
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 820
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,418
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,593
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,593
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
        

</TABLE>
TREADAWAY EX REL. VIERLING v. NIEBAUER.

No. COA05-109.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (03CVS1429).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5059 

To amend the African Growth and Opportunity Act with respect to lesser 

developed countries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2008 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the African Growth and Opportunity Act with 

respect to lesser developed countries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 112(c) of the African 

5 Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3721(c)) is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); 

8 (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as para9 graph (2); and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5059 IH

1 (3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(3) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

4 ‘lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

5 country’ means— 

6 ‘‘(A) a beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

7 country that had a per capita gross national 

8 product of less than $1,500 in 1998, as meas9 ured by the International Bank for Reconstruc10 tion and Development; 

11 ‘‘(B) Botswana; 

12 ‘‘(C) Namibia; and 

13 ‘‘(D) Mauritius.’’. 

14 (b) APPLICABILITY.— 

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

16 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn 

17 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 

18 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

19 (2) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Notwith20 standing section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

21 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon 

22 proper request filed with U.S. Customs and Border 

23 Protection before the 90th day after the date of the 

24 enactment of this Act, if— 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5059 IH

1 (A) an entry, or withdrawal from ware2 house for consumption, of a good was made on 

3 or after October 1, 2005, and before the 15th 

4 day after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

5 and 

6 (B) there would have been no duty with re7 spect to such entry or withdrawal if the amend8 ments made by subsection (a) applied to such 

9 entry or withdrawal, 

10 such entry or withdrawal shall be liquidated or reliq11 uidated as if such amendments applied to such entry 

12 or withdrawal. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350
                   (SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of, Comlink Communications Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James Bell, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.

Dated:  November 11, 2005

By:  /s/ James Bell
     -----------------------------------------------
     James Bell, President, Chief Executive Officer,
     Chief Financial Officer and Director
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5393 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5393

            To suspend temporarily the duty on Ferro Boron.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2008

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To suspend temporarily the duty on Ferro Boron.

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

SECTION 1. FERRO BORON.

    (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       Ferro Boron (CAS    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          No. 11108-67-1)                                                    31/2011.......
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          7202.99.80)......

    (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>
```
McLAWHORN v. CASWELL CENTRE

No. COA05-48.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 18, 2005.

Certification Date November 7, 2005.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (IC. #368231).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7318

ROBERT HOLLAND KOON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. TIMOTHY CLARK; JORDAN WILLIAMS; S.C.D.C.; NURSE LYNCE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 4:18

- cv - 01584

- DCN

- TER )

Submitted : April 4 , 2019 Decided: April 9, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD , Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Robert Holland Koon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Holland Koon seeks to appeal the dist rict court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Koon’s motions for temporary restraining orders. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collat eral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Koon seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Office of Pe rs. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., 473 U.S. 1301, 1303

- 05 (1985); Drudge v. McKernon, 482 F.2d 1375, 1376 (4th Cir. 1973) (per curiam). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Koon’s pending motion , which seeks to expedite the decision, to order the district court to place the case in abeyance, to order the district court to deliver the record to the Supreme Court, and to send him copies of filed documents. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED