alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7735

GUY JACKSON PRICE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-883-7) Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 29, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Guy Jackson Price seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and a deficient final judgment order. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Price 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

THERESA JAMES, 

Parent and Next Friend ofE.J., a minor 

E.J., 

individually 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Civil Case No. 12-376 (RJL) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

fmm:ER 

(June CJ, 2013) (Dkts. ##10, 12) 

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion entered this ;fd.;of , 

June 2013, it is hereby 

ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #12] is 

GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #10] is 

DENIED; and it is further 

1 
ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

United States District Judge 

2
#### J. H. EDMISTEN v. MARGARET Q. EDMISTEN.

(Filed 20 October, 1965.)

Divorce and Alimony § 13—

Misconduct of the husband prior to the execution of a valid deed of separation cannot defeat his right of action for divorce brought two years after the execution of the deed of separation. G.S. 50-6.

*489Appeal by defendant from *McLean, J.,*June 1965 Civil Session of Watauga.

Plaintiff-husband, a longtime resident of this State, on February 13, 1965, instituted this action for divorce under G.S. 50-6. He alleges that-he and defendant-wife have lived continuously separate and apart since January 14, 1963, the day on which they executed a deed of separation. Answering, defendant admits the execution of the separation agreement and avers that the parties have actually lived separate and apart since June 1, 1962. In a further answer she alleges, as a defense to plaintiff’s action and as grounds for affirmative relief, many acts of misconduct on the part of plaintiff prior to January 14, 1963. Plaintiff’s demurrer to the further answer was sustained. At the trial, plaintiff’s evidence tended to establish the allegations of his complaint. *Inter alia,*he introduced the duly executed deed of separation which contained the parties’ agreement to live apart from and after January 14, 1963, made a property settlement, determined the custody and support of their children, and released each other from all marital obligations. Defendant offered no evidence. The usual three issues were submitted and, under peremptory instructions, answered in favor of the plaintiff. From a judgment divorcing the parties *a vinculo,*defendant appeals.

*Louis H. Smith for defendant appellant.*

*Holshouser & Holshouser for plaintiff appellee.*

PeR CuRiam.

From and after the execution of a valid deed of separation, a husband and wife living apart do so by mutual consent. The prior misconduct of one will not defeat his action for divorce under G.S. 50-6, brought two years thereafter. Plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s further answer was properly sustained. The judgment is affirmed upon the authority of *Jones v. Jones,*261 N.C. 612, 135 S.E. 2d 554; *Richardson v. Richardson,*257 N.C. 705, 127 S.E. 2d 525.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Walter S. Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Momoko A. Beran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to his/her 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/ Walter S. Woltosz


Walter S. Woltosz


Chief Executive Officer


November 28, 2011





/s/ Momoko A. Beran


Momoko A. Beran


Chief Financial Officer


November 28, 2011





(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
# CA2009091EN.01S00301.xml

| 21.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 91/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 91/s3

---

REVIEW OF ‘COMPETITION’ C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 9 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | (IT) |
| 12 | (DE/FR) |
| 13 | |
| 14 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 16 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 17 | (BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO) |
| 20 | |
| 21 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 23 | |
| 24 | (DE/FR/NL) |
| 25 | (BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO) |
| 28 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 34 | (FR) |
| 36 | (GA/EN) |
| 37 | |
| 38 | |
| 39 | (SV) |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | (EN) |
| 45 | |
| 46 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 47 | |
| 52 | (DA/FI/MT) |
| 58 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 59 | (DE/EN/ES/FR/PT/SV) |
| 62 | (BG/CS/LT/LV/MT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 63 | |
| 70 | |
| 71 | |
| 75 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 80 | (FR) |
| 84 | (BG/RO) |
| 86 | |
| 91 | |

9

(DE/EN/FR)

10

(IT)

12

(DE/FR)

13

14

(DE/EN/FR)

16

(DE/EN/FR)

17

(BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO)

20

21

(DE/EN/FR)

23

24

(DE/FR/NL)

25

(BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO)

28

(DE/EN/FR)

34

(FR)

36

(GA/EN)

37

38

39

(SV)

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

(EN)

45

46

(DE/EN/FR)

47

52

(DA/FI/MT)

58

(DE/EN/FR)

59

(DE/EN/ES/FR/PT/SV)

62

(BG/CS/LT/LV/MT/PL/RO/SK)

63

70

71

75

(DE/EN/FR)

80

(FR)

84

(BG/RO)

86

91

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberty Energy Coal Corp., (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
T. Malasek , Chief Financial Officer, on the date indicated below, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the 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 results of operation of
          the Company.


Date: August 15, 2011               By: /s/ Robert T. Malasek
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                        Robert T. Malasek
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer &
                                        Principal Accounting Officer)
# C_2010114EN.01000201.xml

| 4.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5845 — Bain Capital/Styron Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 114/02

On 27 April 2010, 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:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5845. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5845. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 27 (Friday, February 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6196-6197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-582]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee and the 
Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee 
and the Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on Friday, 
February 23, 2007 at the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest 
Headquarters office, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA. This meeting will 
begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 4 p.m. During this meeting 
Provincial Advisory Committee members will discuss Roadless Area 
considerations and potential Wilderness recommendations in conjunction 
with Forest Plan Revision for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National 
Forests. All Eastern Washington Cascades and Yakima Province Advisory 
Committee meetings are open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Paul Hart, Designated Federal

[[Page 6197]]

Official, USDA, Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, 
Washington 98801, 509-644-9200.

    Dated: February 5, 2007.
Paul Hart,
Designated Federal Official, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.
[FR Doc. 07-582 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TOBIAS L. ROLLE, 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv152-MP-CAS

EDWIN G. BUSS, et al.,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the

magistrate judge (doc. 19), to which petitioner objected (doc. 20). Additionally, the

petitioner has moved to expand the record to include consideration of documents attached

to his objections. (See doc. 21). Finally, he has also moved to stay the instant petition so

that he can return to state court to pursue a 3.850 motion based on newly discovered

evidence. (See doc. 23). The Supreme Court in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct.

1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005), held that a district court has discretion to grant a stay and

abeyance if (1) the petitioner had “good cause” for failing to exhaust the claims in state

court; (2) the unexhausted claims are “potentially meritorious;” and (3) “there is no

indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is rejected, and this

matter remanded to the magistrate judge to consider the following: (1) whether the

arguments raised in the objections and the documents attached thereto justify equitable

tolling in this case; and (2) whether a stay and abeyance is appropriate under the factors

set out in Rhines.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-00152-MP-CAS Document 25 Filed 08/09/12 Page 1 of 1
#### STEINER v. STEINER

No. 112 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 657.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 July 1972.
Exhibit 12.1
 CERTIFICATION
                 
  The Company's other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
                 Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
                             
                   
   /s/ Daniel Johannes PretoriusDaniel Johannes Pretorius Chief Executive Officer


Exhibit 12.2
 CERTIFICATION
                 
  The Company's other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
                 Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
                              
                   
   /s/ Craig Clinton BarnesCraig Clinton Barnes Chief Financial Officer
#### NATIONAL MARINE SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. H. S. TALLEY, Appellee.

No. 21091.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

July 12, 1965.

Ben L. Reynolds, Houston, Tex., for appellant, Royston, Rayzor & Cook, Houston, Tex., of counsel.

Joseph Newton, Houston, Tex., for ap-pellee, Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Houston, Tex., of counsel.

Before RIVES and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and NOEL, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The district court held that a collision between appellee’s tug and the tow of appellant’s tug in the Houston Ship Channel resulted from the major faults of both tugs. The only damage was to ap-pellee’s tug, which sank and became a constructive total loss in the stipulated amount of $16,287. Dividing the damage, the district court entered judgment for the appellee against the appellant in the amount of $8,143.50, with interest from the date of the accident. The ap-pellee has cross-assigned error.1

 Five of the witnesses testified orally before the court and three by deposition. We have carefully read and studied all of the testimony in connection with the exhibits, and we cannot set aside the findings of the district court as clearly erroneous.2 The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding interest from the date of the collision.3

The judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. See Horton & Horton, Inc. v. The S/S Robert E. Hopkins, 5 Cir. 1959, 269 F.2d 914, 916-917; Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 9 Cir. 1959, 272 F.2d 913, 918; Annotation 1 L.Ed.2d 1834.

2

. McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20.

3

. Carl Sawyer, Inc. v. Poor, 5 Cir. 1950, 180 F.2d 962, 963; The Hannah A. Len-nen, D.C.Del.1948, 77 F.Supp. 471, 472.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JENNIFER XU,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00187-MP-GRJ

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF RISK

MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 116, Consent Motion for Extension of Time to

File Pretrial Stipulation by Jennifer Xu. The trial has been continued to April 23, 2012 and the

parties request that they be permitted to file the pretrial stipulation on or before January 15,

2012. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Stipulation, Doc. 116, is

GRANTED.

2. The parties shall file the pretrial stipulation on or before January 15, 2012.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:09-cv-00187-MP-GRJ Document 117 Filed 10/21/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

EDDIE L. NABORS

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv251/RS-EMT

KENNETH W. DAVIS,

JASON R. TYUS, JEFF SNELL,

JOHN P. McDANIEL, and

THE GEO GROUP,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and the Order dated January 19, 2011 (Doc. 

9), Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Kenneth Davis and Jason Tyus are 

dismissed without prejudice.

ORDERED on February 3, 2011.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 32.01





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geo Point Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey Jensen, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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/ Jeffrey Jensen


Jeffrey Jensen


Principal Executive Officer


November 22, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Globe Telecom, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr., Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 3. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 31, 2004



/s/  Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr.Name: Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr.Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS
WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO GLOBE TELECOM, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY GLOBE TELECOM, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.