alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rashan WILLIAMS.

No. 2002-KO-0144.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

*1019In re Williams, Rashan;—Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of an Order of this Court dated January 24, 2003, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. “B”, No. 98 CR5 732821; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit No. 2001-KA-0457.

Reconsideration Denied.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research Committee.                    

*Date:*                         October 20-21, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Clarion Hotel, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Annie Walker-Abbey, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Rm. 3266, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, (301) 451-2671,                         *aabbey@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbioloby and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 23, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho Jr.,

Acting Director, Officer of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-20237  Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
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 Annual Report of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis N. Beal, 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 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; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Dennis N. Beal     
|Dennis N. Beal         
|Chief Financial Officer
|September 13, 2004
In the MATTER OF: B.H.S. and A.F.S.

No. COA18-102

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Jennifer L. WILSON v. SUNTRUST BANK; SunTrust Mortgage Inc.; Deutche Bank Trust Company Americas; The Law Firm of Hutchens, Senter & Britton, P.A. n/k/a Hutchens, Senter, Kellam & Pettit, P.A.; Substitute Trustee Services, Inc.; and Does/Janes 1-10 Inclusive

No. 2P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Julia B. Hartley, Attorney at Law, Ramona Farzad, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for SunTrust Bank, et al.

Lacey Moore Duskin, Attorney at Law, for Hutchens Law Firm, LLP, et al.

D. Kyle Deak, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Deutche Bank Trust Company Americas.

Jennifer Lynn Wilson, for Wilson, Jennifer L.

***ORDER***

*577Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiff on the 3rd of January 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of January 2018 by Plaintiff 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 14th of August 2018."
#### Kathleen Taylor, Appellant, v Carol A. Tompkins et al., Defendants, and John C. Sullivan, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 888]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which denied her motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action alleging legal malpractice against the defendant John C. Sullivan.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision whether or not to allow a plaintiff to amend a complaint on the eve of trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its determination will not lightly be set aside *(see, Napoli v Canada Dry Bottling Co.,*166 AD2d 696). Here, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend *(see, Prudential Ins. Co. v Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood,*80 NY2d 377; *Volpe v Canfield,*237 AD2d 282). Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19947]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-05-092]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Chelsea River, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the 
P.J. McArdle Bridge, mile 0.3, across the Chelsea River between East 
Boston and Chelsea, Massachusetts. Under this temporary deviation the 
bridge may remain closed from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., on October 24, 2005 and 
October 27, 2005. This temporary deviation is necessary to facilitate 
scheduled bridge maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from October 24, 2005 through 
October 27, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McDonald, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, at (617) 223-8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The P.J. McArdle Bridge has a vertical 
clearance in the closed position of 21 feet at mean high water and 30 
feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations 
are listed at 33 CFR 117.593.
    The owner of the bridge, the City of Boston, requested a temporary 
deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations to facilitate 
scheduled bridge maintenance, bearing replacement.
    Under this temporary deviation the P.J. McArdle Bridge may remain 
closed from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., on October 24, 2005 and October 27, 2005.
    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 
33 CFR 117.35, and will be performed with all due speed in order to 
return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible.

    Dated: September 23, 2005.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-19947 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
#### Robert L. Utterback and Roberta F. Utterback, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. Joseph W. Young, Walter Hoff Seely, Hollywood Land & Water Company, a Corporation, and Homeseekers Realty Company, a Corporation, *Defendants in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed March 14, 1928.

*James M. Carson*and *Kennedy <& Kennedy,*for Plaintiffs in Error;

*McCune, Casey, Hiaasen & Fleming,*for Defendants in Error.

*486Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein,, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered, and adjudged by' the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and. the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
## United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6064EA
In re: * * RAMONA MOIX-MCNUTT, * * Appeal fro m the United Debtor. * States Bankruptcy Court * for the Eastern District RAMONA MOIX-MCNUTT, * of Arkansas * Appellant, * -v.- * * DAVID D. COOP, DORIS SIMPSON, * MERCANTILE BANK, FORD MOTOR * CREDIT COMPANY * *

Appellees. *

Submitted: September 15, 1997 Filed: October 6, 1997
Before KRESSEL, KOGER, and DREHER, Bankruptcy Judges.
DREHER, Bankruptcy Judge The debtor in this case, Ramona Moix -McNutt (“Debtor”), appeals from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court f or the Eastern District of Arkansas sustaining objections to confirmation of the Debtor’s propose d Chapter 13 plan and a llowing Debtor twenty days in which to file a motion
to convert the case to one under Chapter 11. The order further provided that, if the Debtor failed

### 2

to conve rt the case to one under Chapter 11 within such time, the cas e would be converted to Chapter 7 without further notice or hearing. One of the appellees, Mercantile Bank, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the bankr uptcy court’s order is not

a final j udgment, order or decree within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1994).
We hold that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because th e bankruptcy court’s order in this case was not a final order within th e meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). A bankruptcy court’s order denyin g confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan without dismissing the case is not a final order for purposes of appeal. See Groves v. LaBarge (In re Groves) , 39 F.3d 212, 214 (8th Cir. 1994); Lewis v. Farmers Home Admin. , 992 F.2d 767, 772 (8th Cir. 19 93). In this Circuit, a three-part test is utilized to determine whether a bankruptcy decision is final. We consider: (1) the extent to which the order leaves the Bankruptcy Court nothing to do but to execute the order; (2) the ext ent to which delay in obtaining review would prevent the aggrieved part y from obtaining effective relief; and (3) the extent to which a later reversal on that issue would require recommencement o f the entire proceedings. Lewis , 99 2 F.2d at 772. In this case, the bankruptcy court has task s remaining to be perfo rmed which are not purely mechanical or ministerial, the Debtor may obtain effective relief by appeal ing the bankruptcy court’s order after dismissal or final confirmation,

### 3

and a later reversal of a denial of confirmation will not compel extensiv e relitigation of the entire proceedings. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A true copy. Attest:

CLERK, U.S. BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT PER SHARE)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                             YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                               ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1998            1997            1996            1995         1994(1)
                                               ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
<S>                                            <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>        
Net Income                                     $        450    $      1,097    $        863    $        575    $        422

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding
(excluding Treasury Stock)--Basic
    Class A................................      37,283,059              --              --              --             --
    Class B................................     436,543,573     436,543,573     436,543,573     436,543,573     436,543,573
                                               ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
        Total Basic........................     473,826,632     436,543,573     436,543,573     436,543,573     436,543,573

Shares assumed to be issued due 
to stock options...........................       1,659,816              --              --              --              --
                                               ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------

Adjusted average number of Class A 
and Class B common shares and share
equivalents-Diluted........................     475,486,448     436,543,573     436,543,573     436,543,573     436,543,573

Earnings per share:*
    - Diluted..............................    $        .95    $       2.51    $       1.98    $       1.32    $        .97
                                                                                                 
    - Basic................................    $        .95    $       2.51    $       1.98    $       1.32    $        .97
</TABLE>

(1)   Unaudited

 *    Earnings per share (EPS) for the periods prior to the Offerings was
      calculated using only Class B Common Stock as required by SFAS 128.
      However, since the substance of the Offerings was the sale of
      approximately 30% ownership of Conoco, management believes a more
      meaningful presentation of EPS for periods prior to the Offerings would
      include both Class A and Class B Common Stock, including stock options
      with respect to Class A Common Stock, as though outstanding for all prior
      periods (see Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements). On this
      basis, diluted EPS would be $.71, $1.72, $1.36, $.90, and $.66 for the
      years 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995 and 1994 respectively.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20319]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:  Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Clovis, California. The purpose of the meeting is to review funded 
projects, discuss 2006 project submittal process and new committee 
appointments regarding the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393) for expenditures of 
Payments to States Fresno County Title II funds.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 1 from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sierra National Forest, 1600 
Tollhouse Road, Clovis, California, 93612. Send written comments to 
Robbin Ekman, Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, c/
o Sierra National Forest, High Sierra Ranger District, 29688 Auberry 
Road, Prather, CA 93651 or electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ceef9f7f1fdf2dcfaefb2faf9f8b2e9ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="631106080e020d2305104d0506074d1610">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robbin Ekman, Fresno County Resource 
Advisory Committee Coordinator, (559) 855-5355 ext. 3341.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, persons who wish to bring Payments to States Fresno County 
Title II project matters to the attention of the Committee may file 
written statements and the Committee staff before or after the meeting.
    Public sessions will be provided and individuals who made written 
requests by August 10, 2004 will have the opportunity to address the 
Committee at those sessions. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Call for new projects process; (2) Recruitment for new members; (3) 
Review of funded projects and (4) Public comments.

    Dated: October 4, 2005.
Ray Porter,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 05-20319 Filed 10-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20514

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CLARENCE LEWIS, III,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-682-1

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clarence Lewis, III, federal prisoner # 43461-279, appeals the denial of 

his motion for a mandatory evidentiary hearing challenging the legality of the 

district court’s restitution order. He argues that the district court violated 18 

U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) by failing to afford him the opportunity to contest the final 

restitution judgment entered outside of the 90-day period allowed under that 

statute. He also argues that the order of restitution is unenforceable because 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 27, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20514 Document: 00514530749 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2018
No. 17-20514

2

it was entered after he filed his notice of appeal, depriving the district court of

jurisdiction. He contends that his constitutional right to be present at 

sentencing was violated when the district court entered the restitution order 

outside his presence. Additionally, Lewis asserts that the Government 

provided false information to the district court in support of the amount of 

restitution and that he was deprived of the opportunity to contest the validity 

of the information.

The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Lewis’s motion 

challenging the legality of the restitution portion of his sentence. See United 

States v. Hatten, 167 F.3d 884, 887 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing United States 

v. Segler, 37 F.3d 1131, 1135 (5th Cir. 1994)). Lewis’s motion is “an 

unauthorized motion which the district court was without jurisdiction to 

entertain. Thus, he has appealed from the denial of a meaningless, 

unauthorized motion.” United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Because this is the third time Lewis has challenged the restitution portion of 

his sentence in post-judgment proceedings, his appeal is DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. His motion for release pending appeal is 

DENIED.

Lewis has unsuccessfully sought relief from his restitution order in two 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and now in an unauthorized motion. He is WARNED 

that future frivolous filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may 

include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file 

pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED; MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL DENIED.

 Case: 17-20514 Document: 00514530749 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2018
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  --------------------------------------------------------------------  In connection with the Quarterly Report of StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark L. Kay, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: November 13, 2008   /s/ Mark L. Kay Mark L. Kay Chief Executive Officer