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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7368

DARRELL ANDRE TONKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NEWPORT NEWS CITY JAIL; CHUCK MOORE, Jail

Administrator; E. L. BOWER, Captain, Chief

Administrator,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-157-AM)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 23, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Andre Tonkins, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Christopher Sams,

SAMS & HAWKINS, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion, dismissing the action because it

failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1997), and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Tonkins v. Newport News City Jail, No. CA-95-157-AM (E.D.

Va. Aug. 8, 1995). 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
**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | • | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended                June                30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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: August 17, 2006                                              |
|                                                                |   |
| /s/              John E.              Jones                         |
| John E. Jones                                                       |
| Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive                Officer) |
|   |
|--------|

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULES 2.3 

AND 3.6 AND THE COMMENT TO 

RULE 3.1 OF THE RULES 

GOVERNING STANDARDS OF 

CONDUCT OF MAGISTERIAL 

DISTRICT JUDGES

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 421

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25

th day of April, 2018, upon the recommendation of the Minor 

Court Rules Committee; the proposal having been submitted without publication pursuant 

to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3):

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that Rules 2.3 and 3.6 and the Comment to Rule 3.1 of the Rules Governing Standards 

of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges are amended in the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective July 1, 2018.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15a-14(b) and Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the
Trust) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of
the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Trust.

|                     |  |     |  |                                                               
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |     |  | BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
|                     |  |     |  |                                                               
|Date: March 12, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Ron E. Hooper                                             
|                     |  |     |  |                                                               
|                     |  |     |  | Ron E. Hooper,                                                
|                     |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Royalty
Management                     

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Permian Basin Royalty Trust and will be
retained by the Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

VICTOR RIVERA, MILAGROS ROSAS, )

and ROSA RAMOS, )

)

Appellants, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-27

)

SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed May 24, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Rex M. Barbas,

Judge.

Melissa A. Giasi of Sivyer Barlow &

Watson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

Anthony J. Russo and Mihaela Cabulea

of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP,

Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2338

HEPHZIBAH BATES, a/k/a Hattie Tea Jenkins Bates,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT MCDONNELL, Governor,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:12-cv-00643-REP)

Submitted: December 21, 2012 Decided: January 11, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hephzibah Bates, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hephzibah Bates appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her civil complaint as frivolous and delusional under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Bates v. McDonnell, No. 3:12-cv-00643-REP 

(E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2012). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# Date and Times:

Tuesday, November 1, 2005; 10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.

# Place:

Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

# Status:

November 1—10 a.m. (Closed); 3:30 p.m. (Open).

## Matters To Be Considered

### Tuesday, November 1 at 10 a.m. (Closed)

1. Strategic Planning.

2. Financial Update.

3. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.

4. Rate Case Planning.

5. Pricing of International Services.

### Tuesday, November 1 at 3:30 p.m. (Open)

1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, September 26-27, 2005.

2. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO Jack Potter.

3. Committee Reports.

4. Quarterly Report on Service Performance.

5. Tentative Agenda for the December 6, 2005, meeting in Washington, DC.

# For Further Information Contact:

William T. Johnstone, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

William T. Johnstone,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-21497  Filed 10-24-05; 4:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
GREASE MONKEY HOLDING CORPORATION:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 
33-80376) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 33-79616) on Form 
S-3 of Grease Monkey Holding Corporation of our report dated March 7, 1997, 
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Grease Monkey Holding 
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the 
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash 
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, 
which report appears in the December 31, 1996, annual report on Form 10-KSB 
of Grease Monkey Holding Corporation.


                                    KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 25, 1997
#### CATHARINE RIEBEL ET VIR., PLAINTIFFS, v. CLARENCE H. LIDDLE ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Decided March 22, 1932.

Before Gummere, Chiee Justice, and Justices Parker and Case.

For the rule, *John C. Stoclcel.*

Contra, *Alfred D. Antonia.*

Per Curiam.

This is an action brought to recover compensation for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff Catherine Eiebel from being struck down by an automobile belonging to the defendants and driven by one of them. The accident happened on State street, in Perth Amboy, while she was crossing the driveway leading from that street to the railroad station of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Her husband joined in the suit and seeks to recover compensation for the medical expenses incurred by him and resulting from his wife’s injuries and also for the loss of her consortium. The trial resulted in a verdict of $3,000 in favor of Mrs. Riebel and $634 in favor of her husband.

The first ground upon which we are asked to make this rule absolute is that the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs is *438against the weight, of the evidence. We think there is no merit in this contention. The undisputed proof shows that Mrs. Eiebel who was walking along the sidewalk of State street, undertook to cross over the driveway into the Pennsylvania railroad station when she came to it, and that while doing so the defendant Pfeiffer, who was driving the car, turned from State street into the driveway without noticing her at all until he was within a few feet of her, and that he gave no warning of his intention to make this turn until it was too late for Mrs. Eiebel to avoid the collision. These facts, we think, make it plain that the accident was the rekult of the carelessness of the driver of defendant’s car, and there is nothing in them to justify the contention made on behalf of the defendants that Mrs. Eiebel was negligent in failing to observe the car as it turned into the driveway.

The only other contention is that the verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs are excessive. The amount awarded to the husband is only slightly in excess of the moneys actually expended by him in the treatment of his wife. Mrs. Eiebel was a woman sixty-one years old at the time of the accident. The injuries received by her were quite severe. Her right, knee joint was injured; she was struck on the head; and numerous parts of her body were bruised. As the result of her injuries she was confined to her bed for something like-four months, and was not able to leave her house until about, eight months after the accident. She suffered a great deal of pain and does not attempt to walk unless she uses a cane. She also suffers from psychoneurosis as a result of the accident and will probably continue to do so during the rest of her life, certainly for an indefinite time hereafter. In this, situation, we 'do not think we would be justified in saying that the award to the wife is so clearly excessive as to warrant us in setting the verdict aside.
# C_2007249EN.01000301.xml

| 24.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4785 — Russian Machines/Magna)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 249/05)

On 30 August 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 32007M4785. 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 32007M4785. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
**EXHIBIT
      32**




**CERTIFICATION**





**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted by**


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




Each
      of
      the undersigned, David F. Carney, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
      Lincoln Educational Services Corporation (the “Company”), and Cesar Ribeiro,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, has executed this certification in
      connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,
      2007 (the “Report”).




Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his respective 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date:    August
      9, 2007








/s/
                David F. CarneyDavid F. CarneyChairman
                & Chief Executive Officer/s/
                Cesar RibeiroCesar RibeiroChief
                Financial Officer
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN 

SERVICE INSTITUTE, Washington, DC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1367

Issued: October 27, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 13, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a February 14, 2018 merit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-1367.

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.2 

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.3

The 180th day following the February 14, 2018 decision was August 13, 2018. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until September 13, 2021, more than 180 days after 

1 Appellant indicated that he was appealing from a December 31, 2018 OWCP decision. The Board notes that there 

is no OWCP decision dated December 31, 2018 found in the case record.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

3

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

the February 14, 2018 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1367

is untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1367 is dismissed.

Issued: October 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov*).                 

*Agreement No.:*                     009831-023.                 

*Title:*                     New Zealand/United States Container Lines Association.                 

*Parties:*                     Australia-New Zealand Direct Line; CP Ships USA, LLC; and Hamburg-Sud.                 

*Filing Party:*                     Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.                 

*Synopsis:*                     The amendment removes P&O Nedlloyd Limited as a party to the agreement.                 

*Agreement No.:*                     011834-002.                 

*Title:*                     Maersk Sealand/Hapag-Lloyd Mediterranean U.S. East Coast Slot Charter Agreement.                 

*Parties:*                     A.P. Moller Maersk A/S and Hapag-Lloyd Container Linie GmbH.                 

*Filing Party:*                     Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.                 

*Synopsis:*                     The amendment expands the range of Spanish ports covered by the agreement and adds ports in France to the geographic scope of the agreement.                 

Dated: October 28, 2005. 

By order of the Federal Maritime Commission. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-21852 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
No. 75-6983.

#### Stokes *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.