alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
,.,( .

y: OFFICE **OF TNE**  A’ ITORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS i. AUSTIN 5 ,,T g-c.Mmn ‘ -” mweasmv--

/..

## nottoP8blo

li. A. zwvl8,PDge a 

## She iwuutoeof ee~Mflbd oopLe8 of birth'or.

d.ath 8Mt 6 oePtiii8d

oooJ.of theP8ooPd

Of @ty ..~ **.~OPd88thP8@8tiPOdWt&l'** 

## . *hioh he DhDll

b8 

## OatHledto 

## 8 See of fifty **UO&8** 

## (50#), **t0 bo**  **wd w**  **tb,** 

### 8pPlbUtt;. **Altduly8ueho~~ofthePeeoPdor8blPth ,,**  **op dwth,**  **whetl pPqoPl7**  **ooP8iiied b7**  **aa** st8to

**8t~8~, dmll**  **be W.BO**  **h8le evld8noo**  **in 8OUPt:**  **~$t$ 8tat.d.**  **POOD Of**  **8hO i8Ob8**  

## tyP8in **.,**


## &.denoe in 8 oourt

of mooti.m

## Roxto~8ble

Y. i, ~vtb, Page 4

.‘~. .:... . .

. **: ‘**  **. ’**  **”**
. ;:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1449

MARK JOHNSON, d/b/a JQ Solutions,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

EDWIN WESTLAKE; WESTEV WW COMMODITIES LLC,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00457-GCM)

Submitted: August 17, 2011 Decided: September 19, 2011

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint for 

insufficiency of service of process. After the date of that 

order, but before the effective date of Johnson’s notice of 

appeal, the district court entered an order vacating the order 

Johnson seeks to appeal and reopening the case. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), (B)(i). Thus, the order Johnson seeks to 

challenge is no longer in effect, and the case is actively 

proceeding in the district court.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). In light of the entry by the district court of an 

order reopening Johnson’s case, the order Johnson seeks to 

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory 

or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 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 32.1

RULE 13(a)-14(b) 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 Brandywine Realty Trust (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gerard H. Sweeney, 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) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Gerard H. Sweeney                                                         
|Gerard H. Sweeney President
and Chief Executive Officer Date: November 6, 2009



|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Brandywine Realty Trust and will be retained by Brandywine Realty Trust
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 4447

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MATTHEW JOSEPH KELLEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 8:16

- cr - 00699

- TMC

- 1 )

Submitted : December 12, 2017 Decided: December 13, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Matthew Joseph Kelley pled guilty without a written plea agreement to possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d) (2012), and was
sentenc ed to 46 months in prison. Kelley appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence is reasonable but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Kelley

wa s advised of his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm. We first conclude that Kelley’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Kelley stated at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol , was 28 years old, had an eleventh

- grade education, and understood the nature of the proceedings

. He expressed complete satisfaction with his attorney’s services. A factual basis for the plea was presented to the court, Kelley stated that the factual basis was accurate, and he admitted h is guilt. Finally, the district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11

. With respect to sentencing, the court properly calculated Kelley ’s Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012 ) sentencing factors and the arguments of the parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the
case. We hold that the within

- Guidelines sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United Stat es , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter , 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Pursuant to Anders , we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Kelley ’s conviction and sentence.3 This court requires that counsel inform Kelley , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Kelley requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Kelley . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi als before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2








Certification
of Acting co-CFOs 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 on Form 10-Q of GAMCO Investors, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Diane M.
LaPointe and Kieran Caterina, as Acting Co-Chief Financial Officers of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their
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 operations of the Company.








/s/ Diane M.
      LaPointe
            /s/ Kieran
      CaterinaName:
      Diane M. LaPointe
            Name:
      Kieran CaterinaTitle:   Acting
      Co-Chief Financial Officer
            Title:   Acting
      Co-Chief Financial OfficerDate:   May
      12, 2008
            Date:   May
      12, 2008





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BEYOND.COM CORPORATION FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          50,450
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,864
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (917)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,764
<PP&E>                                           4,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (945)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 219,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,339
<BONDS>                                         63,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       197,223
<OTHER-SE>                                    (67,466)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   219,451
<SALES>                                         19,102
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,102
<CGS>                                           16,204
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (410)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,796)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,796)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,796)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.66)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>For purposes of this exhibit, Primary means Basic and Diluted.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6827]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2063]


Petition for Reconsideration of Actions in Rulemaking Proceedings

March 16, 1995.
    Petition for reconsideration have been filed in the Commission 
rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is 
available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Opposition to this petition must 
be filed April 5, 1995. See Sec. 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules 
(47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 
days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to the 
Establishment and Regulation of New Digital Audio Radio Services. (GEN 
Docket No. 90-357)
    Number of Petition Filed: 1
Subject: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt 
Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems. (PR Docket No. 
93-61)
    Number of Petition Filed: 1

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6827 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2630

EQI, Ltd: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF SHOE CARNIVAL, INC.

|Subsidiary                  |  | State of Incorporation/Organization |  | Percentage of Ownership 
|--------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                            |  |                                     |  |                         
|SCHC, Inc.                  |  | Delaware                            |  | 100%                    
|SCLC, Inc.                  |  | Delaware                            |  | 100% Owned by SCHC, Inc.
|Shoe Carnival Ventures, LLC |  | Indiana                             |  | 100%                    
|                            |  |                                     |  |                         
|                            |  |                                     |  |
EXHIBIT
31.2
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 I,
Lawrence E. Dickinson, certify that:
 
 1.  I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LMI Aerospace,
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 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)) 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 most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
  5.  The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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:  May
      16, 2005
    /s/
      Lawrence E. DickinsonLawrence
      E. DickinsonChief
      Financial Officer and Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15608-15609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7290]



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


NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Meeting; Visual Arts Advisory Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Visual Arts Advisory Panel (Other Genres Section) to the 
National Council on the Arts will be held on April 17-21, 1995, from 
9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on April 17-20 and from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 
on April 21. This meeting will be held in Room 716, at the Nancy Hanks 
Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
    A portion of this meeting will be open to the public from 3:30 p.m. 
to 5:00 p.m. on April 21, for a policy discussion and guidelines 
review.
    The remaining portions of this meeting from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 
on April 17-20 and from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., on April 21 are for the 
purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on 
applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on 
the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including 
information given in [[Page 15609]] confidence to the agency by grant 
applicants. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of 
February 8, 1994, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant 
to subsection (c) (4), (6) and (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, 
United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and may be permitted to 
participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel 
chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in 
attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of Special Constituencies, National Endowment for 
the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-
5532, TYY 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Yvonne Sabine, Committee Management Officer, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5788.

    Dated: March 20, 1995.
Yvonne M. Sabine,
Director, Office of Council and Panel Operations, National Endowment 
for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 95-7290 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6531
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ABBAS SADEGH, a/k/a Abby, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-95-113-A, CA-95-1377-A) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 21, 1997 Before HALL and MI CHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Francis Krebs, KELLOGG, KREBS & MORAN, Fairfax, Virginia,for Appellant. Justin W. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Marcus John Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Abbas Sadegh appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 114. We affirm. Sadegh was convicted of arson and related offenses for burning down his restaurant to obtain insurance proceeds. Sadegh contends that his attorney was ineffective for failing to investigate theGovernment's files and for not calling as a witness his own financial expert to show that Sadegh had means to escape his debt other than arson. Sadegh also claims that his attorney was ineffective for failing to meet with him a sufficient number of times. Following a hearing, the district court determined that Sadegh's attorney reviewed and investigated the Government's files and theories and that it was a tactical decision not to pursue a financial defense. An attorney's tactical decisions are entitled to deference and should not be second guessed. See Goodson v. United States , 564 F.2d 1071, 1072 (4th Cir. 1977). The district court further found that Sadegh was not credible on the issue of how often he met with his attorney. We do not review credibility determinations on appeal. United States v. Saunders , 886 F.2d 56 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Sadegh , Nos. CR-95-113-A; CA-95- 1377-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 1996).3 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.

AFFIRMED