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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7023

QUENTIN L. FORD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(4:07-cv-00167-MBS)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quentin L. Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the transmittal letter with the notice of appeal is

the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison

officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c);

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Quentin L. Ford seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal

was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

March 31, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on May 6, 2008.*

Because Ford failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of AVP, Inc. ("AVP") does hereby certify, to such
officer's knowledge, that AVP's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended January 31, 2005 fully complies, in all material respects, with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, AVP's financial condition and results of operations.

Dated:  March 22, 2005           By:  /s/ Leonard Armato
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Leonard Armato, Chairman
                                      and Chief Executive Officer


                                 By:  /s/ Andrew Reif
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Andrew Reif, Chief Operating Officer
                                      and Principal Financial Officer
# CE2004084EN.01004301.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/43

---

(2004/C 84 E/0047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2952/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) and Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Sentence of death by stoning in Nigeria

Subject:

Mr Jibrin Babaji, a Nigerian citizen aged 20, has been found guilty of sexual relations with three underage boys and has been sentenced to death by stoning. The sentence was handed down on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 by an Islamic court in Bauchi state, under the Sharia penal code.

Does the Council have further information on the matter? What measures does it intend to take, in line with the European positions in favour of a moratorium on the death penalty worldwide, to ensure that this death sentence is not executed?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council underlines that the EU and its Member States continuously act in international fora, such as the Commission on Human Rights, with a view to favoring the adoption of legal instruments condemning capital punishment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council underlines that the EU and its Member States continuously act in international fora, such as the Commission on Human Rights, with a view to favoring the adoption of legal instruments condemning capital punishment.

| 2. | Regarding the specific problem mentioned in the question, the abolition of the death penalty in general and death by stoning in particular remains a subject of dialogue with Nigeria. The EU Heads of Mission in Abuja have been asked to make representations regarding the sentence of death by stoning passed on Jibril Babaji, as well as the sentences against Fatima Ousmane and Amadou Brahim, which have just come to our attention. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regarding the specific problem mentioned in the question, the abolition of the death penalty in general and death by stoning in particular remains a subject of dialogue with Nigeria. The EU Heads of Mission in Abuja have been asked to make representations regarding the sentence of death by stoning passed on Jibril Babaji, as well as the sentences against Fatima Ousmane and Amadou Brahim, which have just come to our attention.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Earl WILKERSON.

No. 283P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Amanda S. Zimmer, Southern Pines, Attorney at Law, for Wilkerson, Robert Earl.

Lars F. Nance, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

A. Leon Stanback, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of August 2015 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 24th of September 2015."
# CE2004078EN.01017601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/176 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/176

---

(2004/C 78 E/0181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2845/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject:   EU enlargement and air transport

Subject:

Can the Commission state whether, on the basis of the Treaty of Athens, air routes between the airports of the 10 new Member States and the airports of current Member States will, from 1 May 2004, be considered intra-Community air routes as defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1) of 23 July 1992?

1

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

(23 October 2003)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (2) will apply fully to the ten new Member States as of 1 May 2004, the date on which they are due to accede to the Union. As of that date, routes to/from the airports of those States will be considered to be intra-Community routes within the meaning of the Regulation.

2

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.

1

(2)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

2

---
STATE v. Bernard George LAMP, Jr.

No. 222A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 10, 2015.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

Kathleen M. Joyce, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Sarah M. Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 8th of September 2015 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of September 2015."
Linda CARL and Charles R. Eilber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The STATE of North Carolina, The N.C. Teachers' and State Employees' Comprehensive Major Medical Plan, a/k/a The State Health Plan, and MedAmerica Insurance Co.

No. 432P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Buren R. Shields, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Donald H. Beskind, Raleigh, J. Martin Futrell, for Carl and Eilber.

David Dreifus, Edwin M. Speas, Thomas K. Lindgren, Raleigh, for MedAmerica Ins. Co.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 665 S.E.2d 787.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 16th day of September 2008 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 2009."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 16th day of September 2008 by Defendants 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 5th day of February 2009."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 16th day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision 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 2009."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134888 & (48) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

TERRY R. BAKER, d/b/a Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, KATER ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134888 

 COA: 265994 

Ingham CC: 04-001196-CH

HBI, 

 Defendant,
 

and 

GREWAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

strike the plaintiff’s brief is DENIED. 

p1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 8, 2008 

Clerk
DISCOVER BANK v. ALTMAN.

No. COA08-749.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (07CVD13885).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Julie Ann ENGLISH.

No. 194P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for English, Julie Ann.

James R. Glover, Chapel Hill.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of June 2015 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 20th of August 2015."
Exhibit 13.1



Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted 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
of Industrias Bachoco, S.A.B. de C.V., a sociedad anonimabursatil de capital variableunder the laws of Mexico (the “Company”), does hereby certify that,
to the best of such officer’s knowledge:



| | 1. | The accompanying Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



April 29, 2016



| | By: | /s/Rodolfo Ramos Arvizu
| | --- | -----------------------
| |     | Rodolfo Ramos Arvizu   
| |     | Chief Executive Officer



April 29, 2016



| | By: | /s/Daniel Salazar Ferrer
| | --- | ------------------------
| |     | Daniel Salazar Ferrer   
| |     | Chief Financial Officer 



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Industrias Bachoco, S.A.B. de C.V. and will be retained by Industrias Bachoco, S.A.B. de C.V. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
32.2
   CERTIFICATION
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 LIN Television Corporation.
for the three months ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Vincent
L. Sadusky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard J.
Schmaeling, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
   (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
   (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  
 Dated:
November 3,
2009                   
 /s/ Vincent L.
Sadusky
 Vincent L. Sadusky
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 Dated:
November 3,
2009                   
  /s/ Richard J.
Schmaeling
 Richard J.
Schmaeling
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
----

(2004/C 65 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2427/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   State aid for Italian dairy producers

What is the value of the State aid which the Council recently decided to grant to Italian dairy farmers in relation to what would have been the amount if the superlevy had been paid when it was due?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission is not in a position to make such a calculation. The value of the State aid will depend on various variables.

These are notably:

----
----

(2004/C 33 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1494/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject:   Expressions of interest in the Sixth Framework Programme of Research for embryo research and stem cell research

On 20 March 2002 the Commission published an invitation to submit expressions of interest in the Sixth Framework Programme of Research (FP6). Until 7 June 2002, scientific institutes and businesses could submit plans to the Commission for assessment as to their suitability for support from the Framework Programme. On 4 October 2002 the Commission published the results.

From the published results it emerges that in 1997 expressions of interest were submitted for the thematic priority ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology’. This priority includes financial support for stem cell research.

The regulation of human embryonic stem cell research is subject to subsidiarity in Europe, and different practices exist in the Member States in this regard. In some Member States, for example, it is permitted to produce human embryos for research purposes, whereas in other Member States this is explicitly prohibited.

Under the compromise reached between the Council and the European Parliament in September 2002 concerning the five specific programmes within the FP, it was agreed that until the end of 2003 the Commission should not finance any research programmes which included embryonic stem cell research.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

The Priority 1 Life ‘Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health’ received 2000 Expressions of Interest (EoI). About 80 expressions of interest involving research on stem cell (animal or human stem cells) were submitted.

The various sources of stem cells were explored (embryonic, foetal, umbilical cord blood, adult). The specific sources of stem cells were not indicated in all EoI’s nor was the country in which the specific research was going to be carried out. The Commission is therefore not in a position to provide more detailed information regarding the number of EoI’s, which involve the use of human embryonic stem cells and the countries where this research is planned to take place.

A first call for proposals for Priority 1 was published on 17 December 2002 and closed on 25 March 2003. At this stage of the analysis of the response to the call for proposals the Thematic Priority 1 has received 26 proposals addressing research on stem cells and three proposals foresee to use banked or isolated human embryonic stem cell in culture. This research involves laboratories in Belgium, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic and Israel.

----
csgs-ex1025u_181.htm



Pages where confidential treatment has been requested are stamped “Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been separately filed with the Commission,” and places where information has been redacted have been marked with (***). 

Exhibit 10.25U

 

 

TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

CSG MASTER SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

CSG SYSTEMS, INC.

AND

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC

 

 

This Twenty-second Amendment (the “Amendment”) is made by and between CSG Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“CSG”), and Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Customer”).  CSG and Customer entered into that certain Amended and Restated CSG Master Subscriber Management System Agreement dated February 9, 2009, as amended (the “Agreement”), and now desire to further amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.  If the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment shall be in conflict with the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.  Any terms in initial capital letters or all capital letters used as a defined term but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.  Upon execution of this Amendment by the parties, any subsequent reference to the Agreement between the parties shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to their terms. 

 

CSG and Customer agree to the following as of April 1, 2012 (the "Effective Date"):

 

1.    Pursuant to the Ninth Amendment to the Agreement executed by CSG and Customer dated January 10, 2010 (CSG document no. 2301479) (the "Ninth Amendment") Customer has requested and CSG has agreed to provide an additional ****** Prepaid Volume, No Attachments Precision eMailTM  bundle at the ********** bundle level.  

 

2.    Therefore, pursuant to Schedule F of the Agreement and for the fees provided therein, CSG shall provide the ****** Prepaid Volume, No Attachments Precision eMail bundle to Customer, commencing as of the Effective Date. 

 

 

 

THIS AMENDMENT is executed on the days and year last signed below to be effective as of the Effective Date.

 


		
	
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING 

COMPANY, LLC (“CUSTOMER”)

 

By: Charter Communications, Inc., its Manager
	
CSG SYSTEMS, INC. (“CSG”)




 


		
	
 

By: /s/ Joseph P. Murray
	
 

By:  /s/ Peter E. Kalan

	
 

Title:  VP Billing
	
 

Title:  President, CEO

	
 

Name: Joseph P. Murray
	
 

Name: Peter E. Kalan

	
 

Date:  2-7-12
	
 

Date:  2/8/12
#### In the Matter of Property Tax Reduction Consultants, Inc., Appellant, v Township of Islip, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 576]

*377In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated April 19, 2004, which denied, without a hearing, the petitioner’s request under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) for “all property inventory records” disclosing “square footage, bathroom count and miscellaneous data thereon,” the petitioner appeals (1), by permission, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated November 29, 2004, as denied the petition, and (2) from a judgment of the same court entered January 13, 2005, which, upon the order, is in favor of the respondent and against it dismissing the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 29, 2004, is dismissed, as the order was superseded by the judgment and will be reviewed on the appeal therefrom *(see Matter of Simpson v County of Westchester,*5 AD3d 780 [2004]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The petitioner, Property Tax Reduction Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter PTRC), describes itself as being “engage[d] in the business of property tax consultation and offers service [sic] to residential homeowners—who may qualify for tax reductions—by representing such property owners in Small Claims Assessment Review proceedings.” Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6, hereinafter FOIL), PTRC submitted a form entitled “Application for Public Access to Records” to the Town of Islip, seeking “[a]ll property inventory records. Specifically, the property square footage, bathroom count and miscellaneous data thereon.” The Town denied the request, concluding that the release of the information would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Supreme Court upheld this determination and PTRC appeals. We affirm.

Contrary to PTRC’s contentions, the Supreme Court correctly found that it sought access to the requested information for commercial purposes. The record supports no other inference (see *Matter of Siegel, Fenchel & Peddy v Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commn.,*251 AD2d 670, 671-672 [1998]). Accordingly, disclosure of the requested information was precluded by the privacy exemption under FOIL (see Public Officers Law § 89 [2] [b] [iii]; *Matter of Comps, Inc., v Town of Huntington,*269 AD2d 446 [2000]).

*378In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.