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

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 26783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11263]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0288]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply 
Vessel JOSHUA CANDIES

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative 
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel JOSHUA CANDIES as 
required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on April 1, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this 
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, 
inserting USCG-2010-0288 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking 
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
call LTJG Christine Dimitroff, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. 
Coast Guard, telephone 504-671-2176. If you have questions on viewing 
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose

    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed under Title 33, 
Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 81 and 89, has been issued for the 
offshore supply vessel JOSHUA CANDIES, O.N. 1219732. Full compliance 
with 72 COLREGS and Inland Rules Act will hinder the vessel's ability 
to conduct loading and unloading operations. The horizontal distance 
between the forward and aft masthead lights may be 6.506 meters. 
Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal distance from the 
forward masthead light as required by Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 
COLREGS would result in an aft masthead light location directly over 
the aft cargo deck where it would interfere with loading and unloading 
operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal 
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the 
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS. This notice is 
issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 CFR 81.18.

    Dated: April 15, 2010.
J.W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations 
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District
[FR Doc. 2010-11263 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6467

LUIS EDWIN DELGADO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. No. 04-6782

LUIS EDWIN DELGADO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-428-3) Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 1, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.- 2 - Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luis Edwin Delgado, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, 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).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Luis E. Delgado seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. Delgado cannot appeal these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 326 (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 Delgado 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
|Exhibit 23


Consent of Independent
Certified Public Accountants


The Board of Directors of
FPIC Insurance Group, Inc.


We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-83835) and
on Form S-8 (333-72601, 333-72599, 333-09365, and 333-09375), of our report dated February
20, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedules at December 31, 2002 and 2001 and for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2002, which appears in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP




Jacksonville, FloridaMarch 24, 2003


119
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Frank A. Nordin, Respondent, v. The Gould Coupler Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., who dissented upon the ground that no reasonable inspection could have discovered the defect complained of.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,301
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     55,900
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,183
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,840
<LOANS>                                        174,506
<ALLOWANCE>                                        994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 252,383
<DEPOSITS>                                     193,138
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,107
<LONG-TERM>                                     38,335
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 252,383
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,220
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,178
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     4
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,402
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,275
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,792
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,610
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       19
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    552
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         373
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       373
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.63
<LOANS-NON>                                        313
<LOANS-PAST>                                       706
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     88
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   976
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  994
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               252
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            742


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0497. SEANHOLLANDv. MARK BUTLER, LABOR COMMISSIONER

et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered

that it be hereby DENIED.

Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (f), this Court is required to issue an order granting or

denying an application within 30 days of the date on which the application was filed. 

Consequently, Appellant’s motion for an extension of time in which to file an

additional brief is also hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

June 20, 2019

06/20/2019
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D2023-3759 

LT Case No. 2023-CF-7379-A 

_____________________________ 

SHANNON BLOOM NANCE, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Mark J. Borello, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and George D.E. Burden, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina Piotrowski, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

June 25, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., and LAMBERT and KILBANE, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000877

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

CHARLES TUNG MING YUEN, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

HONOLULU DIVISION

(CASE NO. 1DTA-18-03510)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Upon review of the record in CAAP-19-0000877, it

appears this court lacks appellate jurisdiction because no final

judgment was entered by the District Court.

Defendant-Appellant Charles Tung Ming Yuen (Appellant)

appeals from the December 11, 2019 Notice of Entry of Judgment

and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (Judgment).

On December 11, 2019, the Judgment was entered which

found Appellant guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence

of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)

§ 291E-61 (Supp. 2018). However, there are notations on the

document stating "Referred to: restitution + ability to pay

studies" and "HEARING on rest 2/11/20." The December 11, 2019

Court Minutes also state "(Hrg on Restitution 2/11/20 10D-AM)." 

Thus, the issue of restitution was not adjudicated. "Appeals

upon the record shall be allowed from all final decisions and

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000877

04-DEC-2020

09:20 AM

Dkt. 34 ODSLJ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

final judgments of district courts in all criminal matters." HRS

§ 641-12 (2016).

Judgments of conviction entered in the district courts may

not be appealed unless they are final. Judgments of

conviction are not final unless they include the final

adjudication and the final sentence. In the instant case,

the sentence imposed was not the final sentence because the

district court expressly left open the possibility that its

sentence of [Appellant] might include an order requiring

[Appellant] to pay restitution. The court did not finally

decide whether it would order [Appellant] to pay restitution

and, if so, in what amount. Consequently, the [] Judgment

is not final and, because it is not final, it is not

appealable.

State v. Kilborn, 109 Hawai#i 435, 442, 127 P.3d 95, 102

(App. 2005). 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 4, 2020.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

2
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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  AmCOMP   Incorporated  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  I, Fred R. Lowe,  Chairman,
President and Chief 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:

      (1) The Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section  13(a)
or15(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.

Dated: March 30, 2006

                         /s/ Fred R. Lowe
                         -----------------------------------------------
                         Fred R. Lowe
                         Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to AmCOMP  Incorporated and will be retained by AmCOMP Incorporated and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         4572026
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         4204131
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                       60980826
<ALLOWANCE>                                     382449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                97481191
<DEPOSITS>                                    72880431
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              91482
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         16531
<OTHER-SE>                                    24182747
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                97481191
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                4436418
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1448729
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                666226
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               6551373
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             3752985
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3753207
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2798166
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    63668
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               34451
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2494474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 628429
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      628429
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    422786
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.06
<LOANS-NON>                                     510000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                228000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                319000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               382000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            382000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-163199, 333-156431 and 333-136955 on Form S-8 of American TonerServ Corp. and subsidiaries (the "Company") of our report dated March 31, 2010, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009.  

 

 

 

Sacramento, California

April 9, 2010

 

----
The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3634

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Roy Edward Duckett, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

aka Leroy Edward Duckett, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 1, 1997

 Filed: April 7, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leroy Edward Duckett appeals the district court's denial of his

1

motion to dismiss for a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §

3161, and from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possessing

a forged security, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). We conclude that

Duckett waived his speedy-trial claim, and affirm his sentence. 

 

After the district court rescheduled the joint trial of Duckett and

his co-defendant for April 22, 1996, Duckett moved to 
-2-

dismiss, arguing that he had suffered a violation under the Speedy Trial

Act. The district court denied the motion, and Duckett later pleaded

guilty. There is no indication in the record before us that Duckett

entered into a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the

speedy-trial issue. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). We therefore conclude

that Duckett waived his right to appeal the issue. See Unites States v.

Vaughan, 13 F.3d 1186, 1187-88 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1094

(1994); United States v. Cox, 985 F.2d 427, 433 (8th Cir. 1993); United

States v. Gines, 964 F.2d 972, 977 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S.

1069 (1993).

Duckett also challenges the district court's refusal to grant him an

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. We conclude that the district

court did not clearly err in denying the adjustment. See United States v.

Campos, 87 F.3d 261, 264 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 117

S. Ct. 539 (1996). Although Duckett pleaded guilty to the instant offense,

he subsequently engaged in additional criminal conduct--misrepresenting a

social security number. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual §

3E1.1, comment. (n.3) (1995); United States v. Byrd, 76 F.3d 194, 196-97

(8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Poplawski, 46 F.3d 42, 43 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2261 (1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32



CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§1350)



The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively, certify that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the period ended December 31, 2003, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                    |  |                                             
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|March 16, 2004 Date |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.                  
|                    |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and       
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer                     
|                    |  | (principal executive officer)               
|                    | 
|March 16, 2004 Date |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                         
|                    |  | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary,                 
|                    |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer       
|                    |  | (principal financial and accounting officer)