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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 391 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 391

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 
            Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 2007

Mr. Menendez (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 
            Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning areas.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-
Drilling Act'' or the ``COAST Anti-Drilling Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE 
              OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(q) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section or any other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue 
a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil, natural 
gas, or any other mineral in--
            ``(1) the Mid-Atlantic planning area; or
            ``(2) the North Atlantic planning area.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6203

DELIO ANZUALDA, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:06-cv-00769-JRS)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008

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

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Delio Anzualda, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Delio Anzualda, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 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

Anzualda 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
1419.

#### Howell *v.*The State.

Accusation of resisting officer, from city court of Dalton— Judge Longley. September 5, 1908.

Argued October 27,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*William E. Mann,*for plaintiff in error,

cited *Ga. R.*112/538; 58/397.

*Samuel P. Maddox, solicitor-general,*contra,

cited *Ga. R.*119/-299; 112/538; 109/570; 107/693; 86/271; 62/583.

Powell, J.

1. An affidavit charging the defendant with “the offense-of resisting an officer in the discharge of his duty” is broad enough to support an accusation in the city court of Dalton charging the defendant with resisting an officer by assaulting him and beating him.

2. The motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled. At least, one of the counts of the accusation was good. *Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2008327EN.01002201.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 November 2008 — Neoperl Servisys AG v OHIM (HONEYCOMB)

(Case T-256/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark HONEYCOMB - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 327/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Neoperl Servisys AG (Reinach, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2006 (Case R 1388/2005-4) concerning an application to register the word mark HONEYCOMB as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Neoperl Servisys AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Neoperl Servisys AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 28.10.2006.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6797

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANK W. BALLANCE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:04-cr-00282-BO-1; 5:06-cv-00365-BO)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank W. Ballance, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Dennis W. Duffy,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Frank W. Ballance, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying Ballance’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) claims.

The orders are 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 Ballance 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
Barbara BRADLEY v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES.

No. 425P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Tonya Davis Jallow, Susan J. Vanderweert, Raleigh, for Maxim Healthcare.

William G. Goldston, Durham, for Bradley.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of September 2008 by Defendants (Maxim Healthcare & A.I. South Ins. Co.) 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 9th day of October 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants (Maxim Healthcare & A.I. South Ins. Co.) on the 29th 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 9th day of October 2008."
99.2**CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL OFFICER     
I, Ralph M. Amato, certify that:  
4)
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of BoysToys.com, Inc.
5)
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly report.
6)
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results from operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.  
By:*/s/ Ralph M. Amato***
STATE of North Carolina v. Nelson Alexander LOPEZ, Defendant.

No. COA15-1072.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 10, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of the Marriage of Harold 

Steve Hale and Janette E. Hale

No. 06-22-00066-CV

Appeal from the 102nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

19D0805-102). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Chief Justice Stevens, Justice 

van Cleef and Justice Rambin participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 18, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANNA M. WOMACK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CINCINNATI BELL; AMERICAN

EXPRESS,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 16051

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 05765

- MTL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Anna M. Womack appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action alleging discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII

and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 16051

In her opening brief, Womack fails to address the district court’s grounds for

dismissal and has therefore waived her challenge to the district court’s judgment.

See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington , 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003)

(“[W]e will not c onsider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s

opening brief.”); Acosta

- Huerta v. Estelle , 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues

not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived); see also

Greenwood v. FAA , 28 F.3 d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture

arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.

S ee United States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870 , 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts

not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Ci r. 2009).

Womack’s motion for default judgment (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18542]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-57,269]


Temple Inland, Antioch Division, Antioch, CA; Dismissal of 
Application for Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for workers at Temple Inland, Antioch Division, 
Antioch, California. The application contained no new substantial 
information which would bear importantly on the Department's 
determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-57,269; Temple Inland, Antioch Division Antioch, California 
(September 8, 2005).

    Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of September 2005.
Timothy Sullivan,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-18542 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135875(104) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135875 

 COA: 269255 

Grd Traverse CC: 05-009872-FH 

PHILLIP JON FAHRNER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 27, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer**


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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the “ Company ”)
      hereby
      certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)  the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
      period ended March 31, 2007 (the “ Report ”)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:
                May 9, 2007
            By/s/ Raymond D. ZinnRaymond
                D. ZinnChief
                Executive Officer











**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer**


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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the “ Company ”)
      hereby
      certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)  the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
      period ended March 31, 2007 (the “ Report ”)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:
                May 9, 2007
            By/s/ Richard D. Crowley, Jr.Richard
                D. Crowley, Jr.Chief
                Financial Officer
# CE2004078EN.01050001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/500 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/500

---

(2004/C 78 E/0521)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3239/03

by Martin Callanan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Bird killing in Malta

Subject:

Given reports of widespread illegal hunting and trapping of birds in Malta, what action is the Commission taking to ensure the full implementation and enforcement of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (1)) on the Maltese islands?

1

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

(16 December 2003)

As an acceding country, Malta will be required to fully implement and enforce the ‘Birds’ Directive 79/409/EEC (2) on 1 May 2004 with the exception of the transition period that was granted to allow the trapping of seven species of finch until 31 December 2008. The Commission continues to monitor and report on the progress made by Malta in working towards meeting this obligation and the latest state of play was reported in the Comprehensive Monitoring Report (CMR) issued in November 2003.

2

The CMR concluded that Malta is partially meeting the commitments and requirements in nature protection. It also observed that enhanced efforts are required to prepare the lists of proposed nature protection sites and special bird protection areas, including the completion of the consultation process. Considerable efforts are also needed to ensure better enforcement of Malta's commitments regarding the Birds Directive. Producing an enforcement strategy should be a priority of the national Ornis Committee.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in the period before accession.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

2

---
32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





I, Ralph M. Amato, Chief Executive Officer of BoysToys.com, Inc.  (the "registrant"), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that:



(1)	the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), to which this Statement is filed as an exhibit, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





|Dated: | August 13, 2004                          
|------ | -----------------------------------------
|       |                                          
|By:    | /s/ Ralph M. AmatoChief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6942

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRELL ANTONIO GUMBS, a/k/a Kyle,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

District Judge. (4:99-cr-00021-RBS-6)

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

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

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Antonio Gumbs, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Antonio Gumbs appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), seeking a

reduction to his sentence based on an amendment to the Sentencing

Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we find the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Goines, 357

F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion under § 3582(c) “is subject

to the discretion of the district court”); United States v. Legree,

205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). 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
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 of Captaris, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Peter Papano, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|/s/ PETER PAPANO                  
|Peter Papano                      
|Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
|May 8, 2007