alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7497
ANTONIO HODGES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-05-734) Submitted: February 23, 2006 D ecided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Hodges, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Antonio Hodges seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are likewise debatable. SeeMiller-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 Hodges has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss 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
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 3, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137077-78 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

GREGORY G. SINICROPI, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 137077 

 COA: 281726

 Jackson CC: 05-002154-DP 

HOLLY V. MAZUREK, 

 Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

MARTIN A. POWERS,

Intervening

Defendant-Appellee. 

_____________________________________/ 

MARTIN A. POWERS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137078 

 COA: 281770

 Jackson CC: 01-002346-DC 

HOLLY V. MAZUREK, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

______________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 1, 2008 

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. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal to address the constitutional due 

process issues related to the rights of the biological father. 

l0930 

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. 

October 3, 2008 

Clerk
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer 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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of GigaBeam
      Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”),
      the undersigned as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby, certifies
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(i)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
                and





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





/s/Leighton
      J. Stephenson


Name:
      Leighton J. Stephenson


Chief
      Financial Officer


Date: May
      21, 2007
----

(2004/C 65 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2295/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   EU funded projects

Will the Commission list the projects for which EU funds (including any EIB loans) were committed, and for which funds were disbursed, during the last financial year in Hampshire/Kent/Surrey/west Sussex/east Sussex/Isle of Wight/Oxfordshire/Berkshire/Buckinghamshire?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

----
DWC3, Inc., Ryfo, LLC, Paul Miller, and Kathleen Miller v. William G. Kissel and Diane L. Kissel

No. 118P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

John F. Hanzel, Attorney at Law, Cornelius, Eric Dysert, For Kissel, William G., et al.

Ross R. Fulton, Attorney at Law, Tory Ian Summey, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Kristy Godin, Attorney at Law, For DWC3, Inc., et al.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th of April 2016 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 9th of June 2016."
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700087

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

XAVIER S. FOSTER

Seaman (E-3), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Commander Arthur L. Gaston III, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine Support 

Command, Pearl Harbor, HI.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Matthew J. 

Budow, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Captain Kimberly D. Hinson, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 5 October 2017

_________________________

Before MARKS, JONES, and PETTIT, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Milton A. Alpern, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) [Not applicable.]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                                                   /s/ Milton A. Alpern  Date: November 14, 2006 Milton A. Alpern   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00524-CV

In re Michael C. Scally, M.D.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

___________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Filed: September 10, 2008
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

137334 (3) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

LACHANTE MOBLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 137334 

 AGC: 1132/07 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $61.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$314.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

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 19, 2008 

Clerk
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Salesh Balak, Chief Financial Officer of Universal Biosensors, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Universal Biosensors, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Not applicable;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;and  d) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reportingthat occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: August 9, 2007   /s/ Salesh Balak   Salesh Balak  Chief Financial Officer  Universal Biosensors, Inc.  
25
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1129

FLEXSYS AMERICA L.P.,

Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee,

and

SINORGCHEM CO., SHANDONG,

Intervenor,

and

KOREA KUMHO PETROCHEMICAL CO., LTD., KUMHO TIRE USA, INC.,

and KUMHO TIRE CO., INC.,

Intervenors.

On appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No.

337-TA-652.

ON MOTION

Before DYK Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Sinorgchem Co., Shandong and Korea Kumho Petrochemical Company, Inc.;

Kumho Tire USA, Inc., Kumho Tire Company, Inc. separately move without opposition for

leave to intervene.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motions are granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 2 4 2009	/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date	Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Robert M. Masters, Esq.

James A. Worth, Esq.

Guy W. Chambers, Esq.

Carter G. Phillips, Esq.

s20

utridiarwrit

FEB 2 4 2009

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

2009-1129	- 2 -
# C_2012006EN.01000901.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Fardem Packaging v Commission

(Case T-51/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

2012/C 6/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fardem Packaging BV (Edam, Netherlands) (represented initially by: F.J. Leeflang and W. Geelhoed, then by F. Leeflang and S. de Boer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fardem Packaging BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fardem Packaging BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
# C_2010080EN.01002302.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2010 — O2 (Germany) v OHIM (Homezone)

(Case T-344/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Homezone - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 80/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2007 (Case R 1583/2006-4), concerning an application to register the word sign Homezone as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 July 2007 (Case R 1583/2006-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 July 2007 (Case R 1583/2006-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136760 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136760 

 COA: 273405 

Oakland CC: 2006-207186-FC 

ANTHONY TAIWAN ZIGLER, a/k/a

ANTHONY TAIWAN ZIEGLER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2008 

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. 

0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

      ( print page 55817)    
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following Committee Meeting:

*Name of Committee:*                     Army Science Board (ASB).                

*Date(s) of Meeting:*                     12-14 October 2005.                

*Time(s) of Meeting:*                     0800-1630, 12 October 2005; 0800-1700, 13 October 2005; 0630-1100, 14 October 2005.                

*Place:*                     Ft. Leavenworth, KS.                

                    1.                     *Agenda:*                     The FY06 study panels of the Army Science Board (ASB) are holding a Fall Meeting on 11-14 October 2005. The meetings will be held at the Eisenhower Hall, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. The plenary will begin at 0800 hrs on the 12th and will end at approximately 1100 hrs on the 14th. For further information on the FY06 ASB Fall Meeting, please contact COL Heather Ierardi at (703) 693-3079 or e-mail at                     *heather.ierardi@hqda.army.mil*.                

Wayne Joyner,

Program Support Specialist Army Science Board.

[FR Doc. 05-19010 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
State of North Carolina v. Ian Scott Banks

No. COA16-182

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

NEW TRIAL.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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  Annual  Report  of  Coastal  Bancorp,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  March  25,  2003  (the  "Report"), I,
Catherine N. Wylie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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   March  25,  2003                        By     /s/  Catherine N. Wylie
                                                       -----------------------
                                                          Catherine  N.  Wylie
                                                     Chief  Financial  Officer

<PAGE>