alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Don’t Slip Up! 

Slips can occur on inclines as little as 10o. NIOSH mining research has 10 ̊

shown diamond weave grating to provide the best slip protection.*

* To read the full research paper, visit

 https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1916.html

Friction is your friend on inclined walkways.

Wear a tool backpack to 

avoid carrying tools in 

your hands.

Always maintain three 

points of contact.

Choose diamond weave 

grating when possible. 

When walking downhill, 

go slow. 

Use extra caution when ice,

grease, water, or debris that 

could represent a slipping 

hazard is present.

Photos by NIOSH

Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health

October 2020

Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD LAMONT POSTELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:88-cr-00136-FDW-1; 3:12-cv-00322-FDW)

Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 3, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Lamont Postell, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Lamont Postell seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Postell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Provision of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to the Government of Brazil 

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Secretary of Defense 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2291-4), I hereby certify, with respect to Brazil, that (1) interdiction of aircraft reasonably suspected to be primarily engaged in illicit drug trafficking in that country's airspace is necessary because of the extraordinary threat posed by illicit drug trafficking to the national security of that country; and (2) that country has appropriate procedures in place to protect against innocent loss of life in the air and on the ground in connection with such interdiction, which shall at a minimum include effective means to identify and warn an aircraft before the use of force is directed against the aircraft. 

                    The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the                     **Federal Register**                     and to notify the Congress of this determination.                 

[FR Doc. 07-5370

Billing code 4710-10-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00485

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A .R.P., a Child

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18

- 0449

- CV

- A

Honorable Thomas Nathaniel Stuckey, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellan t Mother because she is indigent

.

SIGNED November 28, 2018.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
**EXHIBIT 99.4**
ANNUAL SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE
BARCLAYS BANK PLC
GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 2) PLC
     The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Barclay Bank PLC (the“Bank”), as Servicer, pursuant to the Beneficiaries Servicing Agreement, datedas of November 23, 1999 ( the “Agreement”), among the Bank, as Servicer andBarclaycard Funding PLC, as Investor Beneficiary, does hereby certify that:
     1. The Bank is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have theirrespective meanings as set forth in the Agreement.
     2. The undersigned is duly authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate.
     3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ended December 31, 2003 was conducted under my supervision.
     4. Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under theAgreement throughout such calendar year and no material default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuingexcept as set forth in the Paragraph 5 below.
     5. The following is a description of each material default in the performance of the Servicer’s obligations under the provisions ofthe Agreement known to the undersigned to have been made by the Servicer during the calendar year ended December 31, 2003, whichsets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each such defaultand (iii) the current status of each such default:
None.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this AnnualServicer’s Certificate this 21st day of June, 2004.   Barclays Bank PLCas ServicerBy: /s/ Richard Francis Sommers Name: Richard Francis Sommers Title: Finance Director
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 Lescarden Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 29,2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of 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/ William E. Luther
                             William E. Luther
                     President and Chief Executive Officer
                             April 5, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RONALD DEESE,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 4:10-CV-25-SPM/WCS

FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT

OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES STATE OF

FLORIDA,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Joint Motion to Extend

Time to File Pre-trial Documents (doc. 44). Upon consideration it is ORDERED

AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. The Parties shall have until

December 3, 2010, to file pre-trial documents.

DONE AND ORDERED this first day of December, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
#### BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION v. ANNAS

No. 241 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 405.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 September 1979. Motion of third party defendants to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 10 September 1979.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001096085
<NAME>                        Celexx Coropation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     522,471
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              2,212,298
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                422,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           3,391,340
<PP&E>                                     568,724
<DEPRECIATION>                             276,944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             8,172,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      3,696,265
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   15,620
<OTHER-SE>                                 4,388,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               8,172,379
<SALES>                                    3,565,274
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3,565,274
<CGS>                                      2,533,929
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              2,533,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           3,699,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           500,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         27,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,195,341)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,195,341)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,195,341)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.24)



</TABLE>
#### STATE v. RONALD FRED MANESS.

(Filed 28 April, 1965.)

1. Criminal Ijaw § @9—

Where the State introduces evidence tending to establish each essential element of the offense charged, the fact that defendant introduces evidence at variance therewith cannot justify nonsuit.

2. Criminal Law § 134—

An assignment of error not supported by an exception will not be considered.

S. Arrest and Bail § 8—

The failure of a warrant for resisting arrest to aver, even in a general way, the manner in which defendant resisted or obstructed the officer, is fatal.

Appeal by defendant from *Burgwyn, E.J.,*November 1964 Special Session of RANDOLPH.

Defendant was tried in the Recorder’s Court of Randolph County on a warrant containing two counts, charging (1) he “unlawfully and wilfully made an assault on one C. R. Joyce, by striking him with his fist, and kicking him in his private parts,” and (2) did “unlawfully *359and wilfully resist, delay, and obstruct a public officer, to wit C. R. Joyce a duly qualified Deputy Sheriff of Randolph County, while he the said C. R. Joyce was attempting to discharge and discharging a duty of his office, to wit attempting to make an arrest on the said Ronald Maness, in violation of G.S. 14-223.” The Recorder found defendant guilty on each charge. Prison sentence was imposed. Defendant appealed to the Superior Court. Trial was had there on the warrant. The jury found defendant guilty as charged. Prison sentence of 30 days was imposed on the first count, and six months on the second count. Defendant excepted and appealed.

- *Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Bullock for the State.*

*H. F. Seawell, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

PeR Cueiam.

Defendant assigns as error the court’s refusal to allow his motion to nonsuit. C. R. Joyce testified: “As I approached Econo Service Station someone whistled loud and I pulled into the station between the gas tank and the station itself. I saw Maness come walking toward my car. He pulled off his coat and threw it on the ground and walked up to the car and I saw he was drinking some and he told me he was going to whip me and I told him the best thing he could do was to go home and stay out of trouble. He shoved me back against the car.”

Defendant’s denial of guilt, and his testimony painting a picture at variance with the State’s evidence, did not entitle him to a judgment of nonsuit. The court properly submitted the question of guilt of an assault to the jury.

The assignment of error asserting failure to adequately define “assault” is not supported by an exception. This failure is fatal. *Holden v. Holden,*245 N.C. 1, 95 S.E. 2d 118.

The second count charging a violation of G.S. 14-223 is, as the Attorney General admits, fatally defective because of the failure to allege essential facts. *State v. Fenner,*263 N.C. 694, 140 S.E. 2d 349.

The judgment imposing a prison sentence on the insufficient charge of resisting an officer is arrested. *State v. Banks,*263 N.C. 784, 140 S.E. 2d 318.

On the charge of assault. No error.

On the charge of resisting an officer. Judgment arrested.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

L ORENZO SANCHEZ

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 3

- 616

[ July 20, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Sevent eenth Judicial Circuit, Broward C ounty ; Susan L. Alspector

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 05

- 10755CF 10A

.

Lorenzo Sanchez

, Sneads , pro se

.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, C IKLIN and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
TPA 511,486,674v1 10-13-10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHERRIE RUSSELL-BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00257-MP-AK

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA,

LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW, and

ROBERT H. JERRY, II, in his individual

and official capacities as Dean of the

University of Florida, Levin College of Law,

Defendants.

/

SUMMARY OF TIME RECORDS

Defendants the University of Florida Board of Trustees, the University of Florida, Levin

College of Law, and Robert H. Jerry, II, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this

summary of time records for work performed in the instant action during October 2010. A sealed

filing of the actual time records is being contemporaneously filed with this summary.

Total Attorney Hours this filing: 16.0

Total Non-Attorney Hours this filing: 0

Dated this 15th day of November, 2010.

/s/ Richard C. McCrea, Jr.

Richard C. McCrea, Jr.

Florida Bar No. 351539

E-mail: mccrear@gtlaw.com

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

625 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 100

Tampa, Florida 33602

Telephone: (813) 318-5700

Facsimile: (813) 318-5900

Counsel for defendants

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -GRJ Document 167 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 2
TPA 511,486,674v1 10-13-10 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 15th, 2010 I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic

filing to the following::

Lennox S. Hinds, Esquire

Stevens, Hinds & White, P.C.

116 W. 111th Street

New York, NY 10026

/s/ Richard C. McCrea, Jr.

Attorney

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -GRJ Document 167 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         265,164
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               275,329
<PP&E>                                       9,536,147
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,753,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,588,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,082,510
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,805,352
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,588,423
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               186,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             319,514
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (500,324)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (500,324)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (500,324)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03536-GEL Document 8 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03536-GEL Document 8 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03536-GEL Document 8 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 70086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22958]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1603-DR]


Louisiana; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Louisiana (FEMA-1603-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and related 
determinations.

Dates: Effective November 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective November 1, 2005.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 05-22958 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
# C_2011105EN.01000101.xml

| 5.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 105/01

| Date of adoption of the decision | 8.9.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 633/08 |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region | Śląskie |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Regionalna pomoc ad hoc dla Ford Werke GmbH |
| Legal basis | Projekt uchwały Rady Ministrów w w sprawie ustanowienia programu wieloletniego pod nazwą Wsparcie finansowe inwestycji realizowanej przez Ford Werke GmbH w Tychach, pod nazwą: Uruchomienie produkcji nowego samochodu ford ka, w latach 2009–2010 – Projekt umowy ramowej o udzielenie dotacji celowej pomiędzy Ministrem Gospodarki a Ford Werke GmbH – Artykuł 117 ustawy z dnia 30 czerwca 2005 r. o finansach publicznych (Dz. U. z 2005 r., nr 249 poz. 2104 ze zm.) |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Regional development, Employment |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: PLN 16,7 million |
| Intensity | 5,3 % |
| Duration (period) | Until 2011 |
| Economic sectors | Motor vehicles |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Minister Gospodarki |
| ul. Plac Trzech Krzyży 3/5 |
| 00-507 Warszawa |
| POLSKA/POLAND |

Date of adoption of the decision

8.9.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 633/08

Member State

Poland

Region

Śląskie

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Regionalna pomoc ad hoc dla Ford Werke GmbH

ad hoc

Legal basis

Projekt uchwały Rady Ministrów w w sprawie ustanowienia programu wieloletniego pod nazwą Wsparcie finansowe inwestycji realizowanej przez Ford Werke GmbH w Tychach, pod nazwą: Uruchomienie produkcji nowego samochodu ford ka, w latach 2009–2010 – Projekt umowy ramowej o udzielenie dotacji celowej pomiędzy Ministrem Gospodarki a Ford Werke GmbH – Artykuł 117 ustawy z dnia 30 czerwca 2005 r. o finansach publicznych (Dz. U. z 2005 r., nr 249 poz. 2104 ze zm.)

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Regional development, Employment

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: PLN 16,7 million

Intensity

5,3 %

Duration (period)

Until 2011

Economic sectors

Motor vehicles

Name and address of the granting authority

Minister Gospodarki

ul. Plac Trzech Krzyży 3/5

00-507 Warszawa

POLSKA/POLAND

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
#### WALLACE v. JOHNSON

No. 17 PC.

Case below: 11 N.C. App. 703.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 September 1971.