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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6522

MICHEAL LEE SPENCER, SR., a/k/a Micheal Spencer,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID ROBINSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-166-AM)

Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Micheal Lee Spencer, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Matthew P. Dullaghan,

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

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 Although the district relied upon Green v. French, 143 F.3d

865 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1090 (1999), in its

initial denial of Spencer’s § 2254 petition, the denial of relief

was also correct under the standards announced in Williams v.

Taylor, U.S. , 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000).

2 Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

March 17, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on March 20, 2000. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that

we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision.

See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lee Spencer, Sr., appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error.1 Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Spencer v. Robinson, No. CA99-166-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2000).2 We deny Spencer’s motions for

appointment of counsel and for appropriate relief. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the material before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO					 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350					 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO					 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, James Farinella, certify that:			1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SoftNet Technology Corporation;			2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;			3. 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 of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;			4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:			a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;			b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and			c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;			5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):			a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and			b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and			6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.			Date:    March 17, 2006/s/ James Farinella                          James Farinella			Chairman, Chief Executive Officer			and President

----
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xtra-Gold Resources Corp. (theCompany) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), I, JAMES WERTH LONGSHORE, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (a)
        the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (b)
        the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:
        November 6, 2008
        /s/
        James Werth Longshore
  By:
        James Werth Longshore
 Principal Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 733rd

LOGISTICS READINESS SQUADRON, JOINT 

BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, Fort Eustis, VA,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 24-0067

Issued: November 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On October 9, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a November 21, 2022 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned the appeal Docket No. 24-0067.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the November 21, 2022 decision was May 20, 2023. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until October 9, 2023, more than 180 days after 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

the November 21, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 

24-0067 is untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has 

not explained his failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 24-0067, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 24-0067 is dismissed.

Issued: November 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND> 
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS 
AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES. 
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997 
<CASH>                                           8,939 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  184,185 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,926 
<INVENTORY>                                    280,248 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               530,796 
<PP&E>                                         359,406 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 137,403 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 878,522 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          358,821 
<BONDS>                                        178,834 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                         2,184 
<OTHER-SE>                                     286,799 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   878,522 
<SALES>                                        667,186 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               667,186 
<CGS>                                          573,687 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  573,687 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,657 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   845 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,413 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,857 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       857 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,000 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,000 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0 
         

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                             Exhibit 23




                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
  of The Advest Group, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of The Advest Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 2-92868)
concerning its 1983 Incentive Stock Option Plan; Form S-8 (File No. 33-
17674) concerning its 1986 Incentive Stock Option Plan; Form S-8 (File No.
33-72042) concerning its Advest Thrift Plan, Form S-8 (File No. 33-56275)
concerning its 1995 Equity Plan; Form S-8 (File No. 333-00797) concerning
its Executive Officer 1996 Restricted Stock and Stock Option Agreement; and
Form S-8 (File No. 33-60425) concerning its 1990, 1991 and 1992 Top Account
Executive Stock Option Plans, its 1993 Stock Option Plan and its 1994 Non-
Employee Director Stock Option Plan; Form S-8 (File No. 333-17711)
concerning its Key Professionals Equity Plan, 1996 Executive Equity Plan,
1997 Executive Equity Plan and 1997 Equity Plan; and Form S-3 (File No. 333-
43053), of our reports dated October 21, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial schedule of The Advest
Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1998 and 1997 and for each
of the three years in the period ended September 30, 1998, which reports
are included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                              /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Hartford, Connecticut
December 16, 1998









                                     -96-
# C_2007255EN.01003201.xml

| 27.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/32

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4836 — CVC/Univar)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 255/07)

On 17 September 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4836. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4836. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Order entered October 2 4 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00649
- CV B.C., Appellant V. STEAK N SHAKE OPERAT IONS, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. 380
- 02686
- 2012 

### O RDER Further review of the record in this case shows that the appellants have filed an agreed clerk’s record that is not certified by the trial court clerk but rather was prepared by the parties. Although Texas Rule of Appell ate Procedure 34.2 permits the parties to agree on the contents of the appellate record, the rule also provides that, “to request matter to be included in the agreed record, the parties must comply with the procedures in Rules 34.5 and 34.6.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34.2. Relevant to the clerk’s record, rule 34.5 provides that “any party may file with the trial court clerk a written designation specifying items to be included in the record.” See id. 34.5(b)(1). Rule 35.3, however, states that “the trial court clerk is responsible for preparing, certifying, and timely filing the clerk’s record . . . .” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.3(a). Based on rules 34.2, 34.5, and 35.3, we STRIKE the parties’ agreed clerk’s record and ORDER the parties,within ten days of the date o f this order, to file with the trial court clerk a written designation specifying the items to be included in the record. Id. 34.2, 34.5. We further ORDER Collin County District Clerk Andrea Stroh Thompson to file, within ten days of the filing of the writ ten designation and payment of the clerk’s fee, a clerk’s record containing the requested items. See id. 35.3(a). Upon filing of the clerk’s record, the parties shall within 30 days amend their briefs to include appropriate citations to the clerk’s record

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(d), (g), (i)

. We
caution appellant that failure to file a properly certified clerk’s record may result, without further order, in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. /s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
# L_2007079EN.01004001.xml

| 20.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 79/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 79/40

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2007/173/CFSP

of 19 March 2007

renewing restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 10 April 2006, the Council adopted Common Position 2006/276/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (1). These measures expire on 10 April 2007. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 10 April 2006, the Council adopted Common Position 2006/276/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (1). These measures expire on 10 April 2007.

| (2) | In view of the situation in Belarus, Common Position 2006/276/CFSP should be extended for a further period of 12 months, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of the situation in Belarus, Common Position 2006/276/CFSP should be extended for a further period of 12 months,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

Common Position 2006/276/CFSP is hereby extended until 10 April 2008.

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2007.

For the Council

The President

Horst SEEHOFER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 101, 11.4.2006, p. 5. Common Position as last amended by Decision 2006/718/CFSP (OJ L 294, 25.10.2006, p. 72).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q FOR
THE THREE  MONTHS  ENDED  MARCH 31,  1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                               428,633
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                2,813
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  2,838
<EQUITIES>                                           2,362
<MORTGAGE>                                          10,286
<REAL-ESTATE>                                       10,275
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                     699,747
<CASH>                                               8,730
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                  19,999
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                              32,729
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,346,296
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                    134,651
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  2,115
<POLICY-OTHER>                                     542,552
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                9,793
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             2,378
<OTHER-SE>                                         153,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,346,296
<PREMIUMS>                                           2,548
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                 12,915
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                       0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                         745
<BENEFITS>                                           8,022
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                            584
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 4,189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,714
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  2,961
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,961
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.34
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                           0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                      0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                        0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                       0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                         0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                          0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### John A. JONES, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent.

No. 05-3111.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 31, 2005.

Before MAYER, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

*1007MAYER, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

John A. Jones requests that the court accept his untimely petition for review.

On November 23, 2004, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued a final decision in Jones’ case, specifying that its decision was final and that any petition for review must be filed with this court within 60 days of receipt of the Board’s decision. *Jones v. Department of Justice,*98 M.S.P.R. 86 (2004). The Board mailed a copy of the final decision to Jones’ counsel by certified mail. The certified mail receipt shows that the November 23 decision was received at counsel’s address on November 29, 2004. Jones’ petition for review was received by the court on February 9, 2005, 72 days after his counsel’s receipt of the Board’s decision.

Jones submits a statement indicating that he received the Board’s decision on December 13, 2004 and delivered it to his counsel the following day. However, the Board’s records reflect that a copy of the Board’s decision was delivered to the office of Jones’ counsel on November 29, 2004. Jones voluntarily chose his counsel in this case, and the time for filing a petition for review began on the date that the office of Jones’ counsel received the final Board decision. *See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs,*498 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) (where action was required to be filed within 30 days of receipt of notice, time to file began on date of receipt by attorney’s office and not date individual party received notice).

The 60-day period for filing a petition for review set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is statutory, mandatory, and jurisdictional. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b)(2) states that the court “may not extend the time” to file a petition for review of an order of an administrative agency. Because Jones’ petition for review was received on February 9, 2005, 12 days late, the court must dismiss Jones’ petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Jones’ request that we accept his untimely petition for review is denied.

(2) Jones’ petition for review is dismissed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.