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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6874

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY COLEMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:10-cr-00305-RWT-1; 8:13-cv-00847-RWT)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl L. Crumpton, Bryan E. 

Foreman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kevin Louis 

Rosenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, Antonio J. Reynolds, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Coleman 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

Coleman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Coleman’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 23761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10616]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act Regular Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm 
Credit Administration Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on May 
13, 2010, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its 
business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be 
open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed 
to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board 
meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in 
advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes
    <bullet> April 8, 2010.
B. New Business
    <bullet> Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--Farmer Mac Non-
Program Investments and Liquidity.
    <bullet> Proposed Bookletter--Evaluating Strategies and Risk for 
Loan Pricing and Structure.
C. Reports
    <bullet> OMS Quarterly Report.
    <bullet> OE Quarterly Report.

Closed Session *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Session Closed--Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and 
(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Update on OE Oversight Activities.

    Dated: April 30, 2010.
Roland E. Smith,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-10616 Filed 4-30-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20513

JOHN DUGAS; RONALD EARLES, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

ENRON CORPORATION, ENRON CORPORATION SEVERANCE PAY PLAN; ENRON CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN; JACK I. TOMPKINS; ENRON CORPORATION SAVINGS PLAN, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas (H-95-CV-4447)

May 7, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Dugas and Ronald Earles appeal an adverse summary judgment.

Having considered the briefs, oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent parts of the2

summary judgment record, and finding neither error nor abuse of discretion, and

on the basis of the authorities cited and reasons assigned by the magistrate judge

in her thorough and comprehensive Memorandum and Order dated May 19, 1997,

and entered May 20, 1997, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Ma Xulun, President of China Eastern Airlines Corporation
Limited (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Company’s annual report on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: April 25, 2016 |  |                 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------
|                     |  |                 
|                     |  | /s/ Ma Xulun    
|                     |  | Name: Ma Xulun  
|                     |  | Title: President



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Order filed August 9, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_________________________

NO. 14-12-00507-CV

_________________________

DANFORD MAINTENANCE SERVICE, INC., Appellant

V.

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 48875

O R D E R

On May 16, 2012, Danford Maintenance Service, Inc., filed a notice of appeal from 

the final judgment signed April 16, 2012, and the appeal was assigned to this court under 

our appellate number 14-12-00507-CV. On May 29, 2012, The Dow Chemical Company 

filed a notice of cross-appeal from the same judgment, which was assigned to this court 

under our appellate number 14-12-00634-CV. 

On July 25, 2012, The Dow Chemical Company filed an unopposed motion to 
2

consolidate the cross-appeals. The motion was granted and the court consolidated the two 

above-referenced causes for all purposes into cause number 14-12-00507-CV. In the 

motion to consolidate Dow Chemical also requested the court to order a briefing schedule. 

Accordingly, we order the following:

 Danford's appellant's brief is due 30 days after the record is filed;

 Dow's appellee's and cross-appellant's brief is due 30 days after Danford's 

brief is filed;

 Danford's reply and cross-appellee's brief is due 30 days after Dow's brief is 

filed; and

 Dow's cross-reply brief is due 20 days after Danford's brief is filed.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 23.1





INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
WorldGate Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form S-8, File Nos: 333-78943,
333-49612, 333-58346 and 333-62810, and on Form S-3, File No. 333-143323 of our
report dated March 25, 2009, which includes an explanatory paragraph as to the
Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, with respect to our audits of
the consolidated financial statements of WorldGate Communications, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for the years then ended,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of WorldGate
Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.





/s/
Marcum & Kliegman llp





Marcum
& Kliegman llp


Melville,
NY


March 25,
2009
**Exhibit 31.1**




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
      ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 302(a) OF


THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
      Colin
      Halpern, certify that:




1.  I
      have
      reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Universal Services Group,
      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; and




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 small business issuer as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report.




DATE:
                August 15, 2007/s/
                COLIN HALPERNColin
                HalpernChief
                Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
                Officer
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Sean A. Cassidy, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of CuraGen Corporation; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this amended 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.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    SEAN A. CASSIDYSean A. Cassidy Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Dated: April 30, 2009
COMER BRASCOM

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1798

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed July 3, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James C. Hankinson , Judge

.

Comer Brascom, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay Kubica, Assistant Attorney General,

Tallahassee

, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
eg

—

rttAtny,

C DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health

Robert A. Taft Laboratories

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998

Phone: 513-533-6825

Fax: 513-533-6826

September 17, 2007

Peter M. Turcic, Director
Division of Energy Employees Occupational

Illness Compensation

U.S. Department of Labor
Room C-4511

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

Subject: SEC 00030 (Rocky Flats Plant)

Dear Mr. Turcic:

On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as required
by 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(d), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decision to designate two
classes of employees at the Rocky Flats Plant in Golden, Colorado, as additions to the Special
Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational IlIness Compensation Program
Act of 2000. On August 6, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS
designated the following classes of employees as additions to the SEC:

Employees of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, or
DOE contractors or subcontractors who were monitored or should have been
monitored for neutron exposures while working at the Rocky Flats Plant in
Golden, Colorado, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work
days from April 1, 1952, through December 31, 1958, or in combination with
work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of
employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

Employees of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, or DOE
contractors or subcontractors who were monitored or should have been monitored for
neutron exposures while working at the Rocky Flats Plant in Golden, Colorado, for a
number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days from January 1, 1959,
through December 31, 1966, or in combination with work days within the parameters
established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure
Cohort.

This designation became effective on September 5, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. §
73841(14)(C). Hence, beginning on that date, members of these classes of employees, defined as
reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.


Please note that Section 5.0 of ORISE Publication 05-0199, “Neutron Dose Reconstruction
Protocol” (February 7, 2005), may be of assistance in identifying those workers affected by the
NDRP.

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1
                         Computation of Loss Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                             Years Ended                         Period from
                          ---------------------------------------------         July 1, 1994
                                                                               (commencement)
                            December 31, 2000       December 31, 1999              through
                                                                              December 31, 2000
                          ---------------------   ---------------------    ----------------------
<S>                       <C>                     <C>                      <C>

Loss for the period               $ 1,150,645             $ 1,766,517               $13,393,837
                          =====================   =====================    ======================
Shares used in computing
 loss per share:

  Weighted average shares
   outstanding (Note 1)            29,467,070              20,545,737                16,962,999
                          =====================   =====================    ======================
Loss per share                    $      0.04             $      0.09               $      0.79
                          =====================   =====================    ======================
</TABLE>

Note 1:  Due to the net losses incurred during each of the periods presented,
         common share equivalents are anti-dilutive and have been excluded from
         the computation.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00514

- CV

Daniel Jimenez and Paul Harrison

v. City of Aransas Pass

On a ppeal from the 343rd District Court of San Patricio County , Texas Trial Cause No. S

- 15

- 6059CV

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, h aving considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REV ERSED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 75 % against appellant s and 25% against a ppell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 13 , 2018
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135896 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



### v SC: 135896 COA: 279144 Bay CC: 98-001264-FH 98-001265-FH RICHARD CONRAD WITBRODT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1552 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1552

To eliminate the limitation on judicial jurisdiction imposed by section 
377 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
                    of 1996, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 5, 1999

   Mr. Reid introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate the limitation on judicial jurisdiction imposed by section 
377 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
                    of 1996, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Legal Amnesty Restoration Act of 
1999''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON LEGALIZATION LITIGATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 245A(f)(4) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255a(f)(4)) is amended by striking 
subparagraph (C).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be 
effective as if included in the enactment of section 201 of the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-603; 100 
Stat. 3394).

SEC. 3. RECORD OF ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN THE CASE OF 
              CERTAIN ALIENS.<plus-minus>

    Section 249(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1259(a)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(a) entered the United States--
                    ``(1) prior to December 31, 1990, in the case of 
                any alien who has been found inadmissible to the United 
                States, or who applied to the Immigration and 
                Naturalization Service for legalization and received or 
                was denied benefits by the Service, by reason of any 
                unlawful, unauthorized, or fraudulent act by any 
                officer or employee of the Service; or
                    ``(2) prior to January 1, 1984, in the case of any 
                alien other than an alien described in paragraph 
                (1);''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE>
                                                            Exhibit 12.1

                                                           CFP Group, Inc.
                                                   Earnings to Fixed Charge Ratio

<CAPTION>
                                                                             Six Months                   Year Ended
                                                Year Ended September 30,   Ended March 31,                 March 31,
                                                  1995           1996           1997           1998           1999           2000
                                                --------       --------       --------       --------       --------       --------
<S>                                             <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
(Loss) Earnings Before Tax                      $  2,343       $ (1,562)      $ (3,902)      $ (5,498)      $ (2,087)      $   (271)
                                                --------       --------       --------       --------       --------       --------

Plus: Fixed Charges

    Interest Expense                               2,632          3,232          4,681         17,236         17,322         17,914

    1/3 of Rent Expense                              206            206            148            406            372            397
                                                --------       --------       --------       --------       --------       --------

Total Fixed Charges                                2,838          3,438          4,829         17,642         17,694         18,311
                                                --------       --------       --------       --------       --------       --------

Earnings                                           5,181          1,876            927         12,144         15,607         18,040
                                                --------       --------       --------       --------       --------       --------

Ratio                                               1.83           --             --             --             --             --

Deficiency                                                       (1,562)        (3,902)        (5,498)        (2,087)          (271)
</TABLE>