alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7210** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. TONY WELLS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of No rth Carolina , at Charlotte
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv - 00104

- RLV ; 5:05

- cr - 00032

- 3 ; 3:06

- cr 00045

- RLV )

Submitted : March 14, 2012 Decided: March 27, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, WILKINSON, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un pub lished per curiam opinion
. Tony Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATE ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opin ions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tony Wells seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion
. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appea l was not timely filed. In a civil action in which the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)( B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russ ell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket

on March 30, 2011 . The notice of appeal was filed on August 28 , 2011
. * Because Wells failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of th e appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny a certificate of appealabilty and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

* For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have properly been delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U. S. 266 (1988).3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional proc ess.

DISMISSED
# C_2009131EN.01001701.xml

| 10.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/17

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/93/09

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

2009/C 131/11

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising open competition EPSO/AST/93/09 to recruit language editors (AST 3) with Swedish as their main language.

The competition notice is published in Official Journal No C 131 A of 10 June 2009 in Swedish only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu

---
* This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 27, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ROJAS, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. RAY ROBERTS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 08-3118 (No. 08-CV-03100-SAC) (D. Kan.)

ORDER *

Before O’BRIEN , McKAY , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.
Pro se Petitioner Jose Rojas, a state prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. In 1987, Petitioner was convicted of one count of kidnaping and two counts of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment on the kidnaping count and two terms of fifteen years to life on the murder counts. Petitioner claims he was entitled to a parole hearing after fifteen years rather than thirty as the Kansas Department of Corrections determined and state-2- courts affirmed. He exhausted his claim in the Kansas state courts before filing his petition in the federal district court. The district court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner had not stated a claim for federal relief, and also denied Petitioner’s subsequent motion to reconsider, which the court construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The district court explained that not only did Petitioner fail to state a federal claim for relief but that he also misconstrued state law. The court noted that the state case on which Petitioner relied, Cooper v. Werholtz , 83 P.3d 1212 (Kan. 2004), did not support Petitioner’s claim because Cooper involved a prisoner who had been convicted and sentenced on only one count, whereas Petitioner was convicted and received consecutive sentences on multiple counts. Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability to challenge the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. See Montez v. McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000). To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this burden, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed Petitioner’s filings, the district court’s rulings, and the-3- record on appeal. We find nothing that meets our standard for granting a certificate of appealability. For substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s orders, we DENYPetitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. We GRANT Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2298 

To amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the corn ethanol mandate for 

renewable fuel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the corn ethanol 

mandate for renewable fuel. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restore Environmental 

5 Sustainability To Our Renewable Energy Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘RESTORE Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2298 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CORN ETHANOL MANDATE FOR 

2 RENEWABLE FUEL. 

3 (a) REMOVAL OF TABLE.—Section 211(o)(2)(B)(i) of 

4 the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(B)(i)) is amend5 ed by striking subclause (I). 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

7 211(o)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 7545(o)(2)(B)) is amended— 

9 (1) in clause (i)— 

10 (A) by redesignating subclauses (II) 

11 through (IV) as subclauses (I) through (III), 

12 respectively; 

13 (B) in subclause (I) (as so redesignated), 

14 by striking ‘‘of the volume of renewable fuel re15 quired under subclause (I),’’; and 

16 (C) in subclauses (II) and (III) (as so re17 designated), by striking ‘‘subclause (II)’’ each 

18 place it appears and inserting ‘‘subclause (I)’’; 

19 and 

20 (2) in clause (v), by striking ‘‘clause (i)(IV)’’ 

21 and inserting ‘‘clause (i)(III)’’. 

22 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—Nothing in this section or the 

23 amendments made by this section affects the volumes of 

24 advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, or biomass-based diesel 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2298 IS

1 that are required under section 211(o) of the Clean Air 

2 Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

EDWARD L. THOMPSON, SR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:09cv384/LAC/EMT

JENT KEELS,

 Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc.

1). Plaintiff has now filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6). While the

handwriting on the affidavit of financial status attached to the application is difficult to read and the

sums do not appear to have been correctly added, it nevertheless appears that Plaintiff indicates that

his household’s monthly income is approximately $1,453.00, with monthly debts totaling

approximately $860.75 (id. at 4). It thus affirmatively appears that leave to proceed in forma

pauperis should be denied, as Plaintiff and his wife have approximately $592.25 per month available

in disposable income. Therefore, in order to proceed with this case, Plaintiff must pay the full filing

fee of $350.00.

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) is DENIED. 

2. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order, Plaintiff shall

pay the full $350.00 filing fee.

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation of dismissal of this

action.
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of September 2009.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 3:09cv384/LAC/EMT
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1933

ARTHUR W. MASSEY,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:12-cv-00385-MOC)

Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur W. Massey, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Dun Rappaport, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur W. Massey appeals the district court order

upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision finding 

Massey ineligible for Social Security Income (SSI) payments as 

of September 2009, because he acquired non-home real properties 

that increased his creditable resources above the limit for SSI 

eligibility. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons 

stated by the district court.* Massey v. Colvin, No. 

3:12-cv-00385-MOC (W.D.N.C. July 17, 2013). We deny Massey’s 

motion to reinstate SSI payments. 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

 * While Massey appears to assert on appeal that the agency 

improperly refused to approve a plan to achieve self-support 

(“PASS”) that would allow him to exclude the challenged

properties from his resources determination, Massey did not 

fairly raise this issue before the district court, where he 

argued that he had received the properties as part of a PASS. 

See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) 

(declining to consider issues raised for first time on appeal 

absent exceptional circumstances). In any event, the record 

provides no indication that Massey ever submitted a PASS to the 

Social Security Administration or that he meets the requirements 

to qualify for a PASS. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1226 (2013) 

(requirements for PASS).
# Waiver and Certification of Statutory Provisions Regarding the Palestine Liberation Organization Office

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State  

Pursuant to the authority and conditions contained in section 534(d) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006, Public Law 109-102, as carried forward by the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, Public Law 110-5, and the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2008, Public Law 110-92, I hereby determine and certify that it is important to the national security interests of the United States to waive the provisions of section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, Public Law 100-204. 

                        This waiver shall be effective for a period of 6 months. You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress and to publish it in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

[FR Doc. 07-5369

Billing code 4710-10-P
EXHIBIT 31.2



I, Becky Corigliano, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company;

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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.

Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys other certifying officer 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's most recent fiscal quarter (Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's internal control over financial reporting; and

1.

Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys auditors and the audit committee of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's board of directors:

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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company'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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys internal control over financial reporting.



Date: November 12, 2004





By   /s/ Becky Corigliano



Becky Corigliano, Chief Financial Officer
# C_2010007EN.01003001.xml

| 13.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/30

---

Corrigendum to the call for proposals 2010 — EACEA/31/09 — EU-US Cooperation in Higher Education and Vocational Training

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 323 of 31 December 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 323 of 31 December 2009

2010/C 7/09

On page 44, point 7 ‘Further information’, first paragraph, website address:

for:

‘... website: http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/eu-usa/index_en.html’,

read:

‘... website: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/extcoop/usa/2010/call_us_eu_2010.htm’.

---
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 Poker Magic, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas Polinsky,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Joseph A. Geraci, II, 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:





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.





November
      3, 2010
              
              /s/ Douglas PolinskyDouglas
      PolinskyChief
      Executive OfficerNovember
      3, 2010
              
              /s/ Joseph A. Geraci, IIJoseph
      A. Geraci, IIChief
      Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 18, 2020

No. 04-19-00784-CV

KARGES-FAULCONBRIDGE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Keath GARRISON and Kassie Garrison, Individually and as Next Friends of Karrah Garrison 

and Mayvie Garrison, Minor Children; Haela Garrison; Ernest D. Copelin, Individually and as 

Representative of the Estate of Roper T. Nathon Copelin, Deceased; Tangela M. Copelin; Texas 

Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Keath Garrison and Roper T. Nathan Copelin, 

Deceased,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI00853

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

 Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice 

Irene Rios, Justice 

Beth Watkins, Justice

 Appellant has filed a motion to abate this appeal in order to seek the trial court’s 

approval of a settlement that would dispose of all claims against appellant in the underlying case. 

We grant the motion and order the deadlines in this appeal are suspended for thirty days. 

Appellant is ordered to file, by March 19, 2020, either its brief or a motion to dispose of this 

appeal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of February, 2020.
___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANTHONY SIKORA,

Petitioner

vs. CASE NO.: 4:10-cv-184-SPM-WCS

LARRY CAMPBELL,

Respondent

___________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation (doc. 6). Petitioner has been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No

objections have been filed. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, it

is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 6) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is dismissed as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this fourth day of August, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.2 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





EXHIBIT 32.2

Section 1350 Certifications



I am
the Principal Financial Officer of Your Event, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the“Company”).
I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter year ended May 31, 2013 and filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form
10-Q’).



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Your Event, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies
to his knowledge that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2013 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 that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.                                              





|                           
|---------------------------
|                           
|/s/ Masatoshi Suga         
|Masatoshi Suga             
|Principal Financial Officer
|                           
|July 22, 2013              
|Date
Case 5:10-cv-00072-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00072-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00072-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00072-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 04/05/10 Page 4 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00072-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 04/05/10 Page 5 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00072-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 04/05/10 Page 6 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00072-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 04/05/10 Page 7 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00072-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 04/05/10 Page 8 of 8