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

          - 39 CFR Part 301, 3010, 3015 and 3020
          - [Docket No. RM2007-1; Order No. 43] 

# AGENCY:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Postal Regulatory Commission published a final rule in the                         **Federal Register**                         of November 9, 2007 implementing certain provisions in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The effective date should have read December 10, 2007, rather than November 9, 2007.                    

# DATES:

The effective date for FR Doc. E7-21596, published on November 9, 2007 (72 FR 63662) is corrected to December 10, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820 and                         *stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of November 9, 2007, page 72 FR 63662, in the first column in the “Dates” entry, correct the reference “                    *Effective date:*                     November 9, 2007” to read “                    *Effective date:*                     December 10, 2007.”                

Steven W. Williams, 

*Secretary.*

[FR Doc. 07-5683 Filed 11-9-07; 12:24 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7818

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ENERVA W. TROTMAN, a/k/a Charles Carlos Clark,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:91-cr-00092-H-1; 4:13-cv-00026-H)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Enerva W. Trotman, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North 

Carolina; Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Enerva W. Trotman seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 Trotman 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
# C_2015419EN.01020801.xml

| 16.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/208 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/208

---

P7_TA(2012)0417

Right to stand in elections to the European Parliament for EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 November 2012 on the draft Council directive amending Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 as regards certain detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (13634/2012 — C7-0293/2012 — 2006/0277(CNS))

(Special legislative procedure — renewed consultation)

(2015/C 419/38)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Council draft (13634/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council draft (13634/2012),

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0791), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0791),

| — | having regard to its position of 26 September 2007 (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its position of 26 September 2007 (1),

1

| — | having regard to Article 22(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament again (C7-0293/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 22(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament again (C7-0293/2012),

| — | having regard to Rules 55, 59(3) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 55, 59(3) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A7-0352/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A7-0352/2012),

| 1. | Approves the Council draft; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Council draft;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

---

(1)  OJ C 219 E, 28.8.2008, p. 193.

1

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DAVID EUGENE GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-65-RS -GRJ

J.T. WITALEC, and 

D. SEARCY,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 43, Plaintiff’s Motion For Enlargement of

Time to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 41.) Upon due consideration,

it is ORDERED:

1. The Motion, Doc. 43, is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his response to

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41) on or before June 20, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9 day of May 2011. 

th

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00065-RS-GRJ Document 44 Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF KNOLOGY, INC.**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Knology, Inc. (the “Company”) that, to his knowledge, this annual report onForm 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (this “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and theinformation contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated:March 13, 2009 

 

This exhibit shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before orafter the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any filings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-28-2000
<CASH>                                         123,849
<SECURITIES>                                    52,433
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,475
<INVENTORY>                                      1,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               211,298
<PP&E>                                          12,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 585,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                     543,823
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   585,099
<SALES>                                        120,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,296
<CGS>                                           98,181
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               108,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,328
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (89,758)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (89,758)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,900)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (94,658)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.52)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      UT
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Statement of Income,  Balance Sheet and Statement of Cash Flows and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
                   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       3,699,957
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        18,870
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                            810,145
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           77,656
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  7,242,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,849,574
<COMMON>                                          605,022
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       1,082,276
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               861,751
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  2,549,049
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             638,500
<PREFERRED>                                        63,598
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            4,471,675
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                      0 
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                               0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       1,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                           1,050
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                             0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                        0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  4,124,702
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  11,849,574
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                         851,182
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               57,002
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        604,179
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        661,181
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                           190,001
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  3,574
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                    193,575
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          105,878
<NET-INCOME>                                       87,697
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        12,969
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      74,728
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           53,748
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                          90,168
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                            159,567
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       $0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       $0.62
        


</TABLE>
12/16/2009 Weingarten Oliver

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC. COMEDY FigueirdDecl.Tab

PARTNERS COUNTRY MUSIC. 124

TELEVISION INC. PARAMOUNT

PICTURES CORPORATION and BLACK

ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC

Plaintiffs

vs. NO. 07CV2103

YOUTUBE INC. YOUTUBE LLC

and GOOGLE INC.

10 Defendants.

11

THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMIER

12 LEAGUE LIMITED BOURNE CO. et al.

on behalf of themselves and all

13 others similarly situated

14 Plaintiffs

vs. NO. 07CV3582

15

YOUTUBE INC. YOUTUBE LLC and

16 GOOGLE INC.

17 Defendants.

18 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF OLIVER WEINGARTEN

TAKEN ON WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 16 2009

19 AT ThE OFFICES OF MAYER BROWN INTERNATIONAL LLP

201 BISHOPSGATE

20 LONDON EC2M 3AF UNITED KINGDOM

21 JOB NO. 18278

22

23

24

25

196
12/16/2009 Weingarten Oliver

Q. Did you understand that let me ask it

Did YouTube tell Premier League that in order to

participate in the trial of the video fingerprinting

technology that it would need to licence content to

YouTube

MR. SHAFTEL Objection.

A. They did at meeting prior to this date.

Q. They said what

A. They said that the technology was being offered to

10 those who they had commercial partnerships with. 1040

11 Q. Which technology specifically are you referring to

12 A. What you term as digital fingerprint technology.

13 Q. Was that the video fingerprinting technology or was

14 that something else

15 A. Are we classifying digital and video fingerprint

16 technology as the same thing

17 Q. am talking specifically about the YouTube video

18 fingerprinting technology that was the subject of some of

19 these cmails

20 MR. SHAFTEL Objection to form. 1041

21 A. That to me is the video which is still digital

22 fingerprint technology.

23 Q. So the question is did YouTube ever tell Premier

24 League that the video fingerprinting technology would only

25 be available to Premier League if Premier League licensed

246
12/16/2009 Weingarten Oliver

content to Youlube 124-0003

A. Yes.

MR. SHAFTEiL 01K.

Q. When was that said

A. Prior to this email exchange in meeting.

Q. Do you remember specifically when that meeting

occurred

A. think it was about February 2007.

Q. And who said that to Premier League

10 A. There are number of representatives from Google and 1042

11 YouTube at the meeting. believe from recollection it

12 may have been Patrick Walker.

13 Q. What exactly do you recall Mr. Walker saying

14 A. recollect him saying Google/YouTube had technology

15 available for those who had commercial partnerships or

16 commercial partnership with YouTube.

17 Q. And did you understand the technology that he was

18 speaking about to be video fingerprinting technology or

19 some other technology

20 MR. SHAFTEL Objection. 1043

21 A. We understood it to be video fingerprint technology.

22 Q. Did you understand that YouTube actually had video

23 fingerprint technology available in February of 2007

24 MR. SHAFTEL Objection.

25 A. We certainly asked the question and YouTube said that

247
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DERRICK L. WYCHE

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv42-SPM/WCS

WALTER MCNEIL,

 

Respondent.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of

Appealability. Doc. 21. The Court stands by its previous ruling on March 28,

2010 (doc. 16) that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right or show that the resolution of the procedural issue

is debatable among reasonable jurists. Slack v. McDaniel, 539 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: the Motion for Certificate of Appealability

(doc. 21) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
# C_2009064EN.01003901.xml

| 19.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/39

---

Call for proposals under the work programme of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking

(2009/C 64/12)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the work programme of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking.

ENIAC Joint Undertaking

Proposals are invited for the following call: ENIAC-2009-1.

ENIAC-2009-1

Call documentation including deadline and budget is given in the call text, which is published on the following website: http://eniac.eu

---
Exhibit 31.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Certifications

I, Richard R. Royall, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Eagle Broadband, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have: a.
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; b. Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in
the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting. 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date:  March 30, 2004


/S/Richard R. Royall
--------------------
Richard R. Royall,
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6353
HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY; UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-332-2) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haywood Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Haywood Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Office of the United States Attorney , No. CA-96-332-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2000). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Smith G. HUDSON, Appellant, v. James F. MARONEY, Warden, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

No. 15222.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted June 7, 1965.

Decided July 22, 1965.

Smith G. Hudson, pro se.

John R. Hoye, Dist. Atty., Uniontown, Pa., for appellee.

Before KALODNER, HASTIE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On review of the record we find no error. The Order of the District Court dated December 2, 1964 will be affirmed.