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

No. 17
- 6371

PAUL E. SEELIG , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. GEORGE T. SOLOMON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. ( 5:16

- hc

- 02030

- FL )

Submitted : August 31, 2017 Decided: September 15, 2017

Before NIEMEYER , DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Paul E. Seelig , Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Paul E. Se elig seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 th at 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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independentl y reviewed the record and conclude that Seelig 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3078-3079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-912]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 249

[Release Nos. 34-35204]
RIN 3235-AG10


Rulemaking for EDGAR System; Correction

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Correction to final rules.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final rules that 
were published Friday, December 30, 1994 (59 FR 67752). Those rules 
relate to the implementation of the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis 
and Retrieval (``EDGAR'') system.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The EDGAR rules and amendments are effective January 
30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Budge, Office of Disclosure 
Policy, Division of Corporation Finance at (202) 942-2910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The disclosure form that is the subject of this correction was 
intended to be [[Page 3079]] amended in connection with the rulemaking 
to fully implement mandated electronic filing on the EDGAR system for 
registrants whose filings are processed by the Divisions of Corporation 
Finance and Investment Management and for those making filings with 
respect to such registrants. Development and implementation of the 
EDGAR system was effected pursuant to Section 35A of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78ll).

Need for Corrections

    This action is necessary to correct an internal cross reference 
within Form 8-A, for registration of certain classes of securities 
pursuant to Section 12(b) or (g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934. 15 U.S.C. 78l(b) or (g).

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication on December 30, 1994 of the final 
EDGAR rules, which were the subject of FR Doc. 94-31579, is corrected 
as follows:
    1. On page 67765, second column, the amendatory language for 
amendment No. 35 is corrected to read as follows:
    ``35. By amending Form 8-A (referenced in Sec. 249.208a), 
Instruction II.2 of Instructions as to Exhibits, by revising the phrase 
`pursuant to Instruction 3 above' to read `pursuant to Instruction 
II.1, above,'.''

    Dated: January 9, 1995.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-912 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7298

Nissan North America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9493]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park System Advisory Board; Notice of Reestablishment

    This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a)(2) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (1988). Following 
consultation with the General Services Administration and the Office of 
Management and Budget, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the 
Interior is administratively reestablishing an advisory committee known 
as the National Park System Advisory Board.
    The purpose of this committee is to advise the Director of the 
National Park Service on matters relating to the National Park Service, 
the National Park System, and programs administered by the National 
Park Service.
    The Secretary of the Interior will appoint to this committee 12 
members who have outstanding expertise in the fields of history, 
archeology, architecture, historical architecture, landscape 
architecture, anthropology, biology, ecology, or social science, or in 
other professional disciplines important to the mission of the National 
Park Service. Consideration will be given to a cross-section of 
qualified individuals who are interested in and directly affected by 
National Park Service activities, and who represent divergent points of 
view. Appointments will be made from among individuals who have been 
identified through contacts with and among National Park Service and 
Department of the Interior staff; other Federal agencies; professional 
organizations; institutions of higher learning; and non-governmental 
organizations having a special interest in the mission of the National 
Park Service; and the general public.

Certification

    I hereby certify that the administrative reestablishment of the 
National Park System Advisory Board is necessary and in the public 
interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the 
Department of the Interior by the Act of August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1, 
et seq.), as amended and supplemented, and other statutes relating to 
the administration of the National Park System.

    Dated: March 3, 1995.
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 95-9493 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,Patrick J. Dirk, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the QuarterlyReport Troy Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 31,2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Troy Group, Inc.

 
|   | By:                                           |    /s/  Patrick J. Dirk |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  Patrick J. Dirk                        |
|   | Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Patrick A. KINNEY, Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, Respondent.

No. WD 47409.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 15, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 29, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied May 26, 1994.

Robert L. Shirkey, Kansas City, for appellant.

John S. Johnston, George E. Wolf, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, P.C., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and FENNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

From an adverse verdict in a Federal Employers Liability Act suit, the employee contests the court’s ruling not allowing an amendment of the pleadings by implied consent under Rule 55.33(b). Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4764

_____________________________

RICKIE WILDER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

October 23, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 23.0
                   Consent of Lockridge, Constant and Conrad
<PAGE>

        [LETTERHEAD OF LOCKRIDGE, CONSTANT & CONRAD, LLC APPEARS HERE]

Board of Directors
MBLA Financial Corporation
Macon, MO 63552

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-70062 and 33-70064) MBLA Financial Corporation of our
report dated August 9, 1999, included in the Form 10-KSB of MBLA Financial
Corporation.

LOCKRIDGE, CONSTANT & CONRAD, LLC

/s/Lockridge, Constant, & Conrad, LLC

September 15, 1999
Chillicothe, MO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-2-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,342
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                       470
<INVENTORY>                                     35,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,429
<PP&E>                                          35,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,766
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,014
<SALES>                                        253,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               253,011
<CGS>                                          211,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  211,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   524
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,654
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,020)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,593)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,073)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,593)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>
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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FSP Galleria North Corp.
(the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, George J. Carter, President and principal executive officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his
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.











Date:
      November 14, 2008
            /s/ George J.
      Carter
              George
      J. Carter
              President
              (Principal Executive
      Officer)
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Tony Andre JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. Tony Andre JACKSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 41016, WD 41667

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 20, 1990.

Susan L. Hogan, Columbia, for defendant-appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before NUGENT, C.J., FENNER, J., and WASSERSTROM, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Defendant appeals from conviction of stealing under § 570.030, RSMo 1986. This appeal is consolidated with his appeal from denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Ausam Energy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to their knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2008



/s/ Mark G. AveryMark G. AveryPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Ralph D. DavisRalph D. DavisChief Financial Officer
#### Vincent GOSSELIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41485.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 22, 1989.

Kimberly D. Tyler, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Thomas GRIMES, Petitioner/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 66117.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 21, 1995.

*309Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Michael Segobiano, St. Louis, for respondent.

CRAHAN, Judge.

The Director of Revenue (“Director”) appeals the trial court’s order setting aside Director’s determination that Thomas Grimes’ (“Petitioner”) driving privileges be denied for a minimum of ten years pursuant to § 302.060(9) RSMo 1994. We reverse and vacate the trial court’s order.

Petitioner was convicted of Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”) in 1976, 1985, and in 1993. On June 16, 1993, Petitioner was issued a “Notice of Loss of Driving Privilege” which informed him that his driving privileges were being denied for a “10 year minimum” due to “multiple DWI convictions.” It further indicated that he had been assessed twelve points for his 1993 DWI conviction and that his license would be revoked on July 18, 1993.

On July 16,1993, Petitioner filed a petition seeking judicial review of the ten-year denial action.1 On March 23, 1994, the trial court set aside Director’s determination that Petitioner’s driving privileges be denied for a minimum of ten years.

Director raises one point on appeal. She contends the trial court erred in setting aside the denial of Petitioner’s driving privileges because the validity of the denial was not a justiciable issue. We agree.

Our supreme court’s recent decision in *Adkisson v. Director of Revenue,*891 S.W.2d 131 (Mo. banc 1995) is controlling. In *Adkisson,*the court considered a similar fact situation and held that “no justiciable controversy exists as to whether a driver may be denied a license under § 302.060(9).” 891 S.W.2d at 132. Such challenges are non-justiciable when they are made before an application for a new license has been denied. 891 S.W.2d at 133.

In the present ease, Petitioner had not yet applied for a new license at the time of the trial court’s order. Thus, the trial court erred in setting aside Director’s determination because there was no justiciable controversy.

Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the trial court’s order.

REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, J., concur.

1

. On appeal, Petitioner contends that he challenged the underlying "points" revocation and not the ten-year denial of his driving privileges. However, it is clear from a review of his Petition for Trial De Novo filed with the trial court, as well as the Agreed Statement of the Record on Appeal, that this assertion is unfounded.
exv10w7






Exhibit 10.7




PATENT COLLATERAL AGREEMENT AND NOTICE




     This Patent Collateral Agreement and Notice dated as of April 14, 2010, is between
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 651 Campus Drive, St. Paul, MN 55112 (“Assignor”) and Partners for Growth III,
L.P., 180 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94111 (“Assignee”) pursuant to a Loan and
Security Agreement dated April 14, 2010, by and between Assignor and Assignee and pursuant to
certain other loan documents referenced therein (collectively, the “Loan Documents”).



     WHEREAS, Assignor is the owner of certain United States patents and/or patent applications as
listed on Exhibit 1 hereto (the “Patents”); and



     WHEREAS, Assignee has agreed to extend certain credit to Assignor on condition that the
Assignor pledge and grant to Assignee as collateral for the Obligations (as defined in the Loan
Documents) a security interest and lien in and to the Patents and all proceeds thereof and all
other related claims and rights as more fully described in a certain Intellectual Property Security
Agreement (the “Security Agreement”) in favor of the Assignee dated April 14, 2010, by and between
Assignor and Assignee;



     NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, as security for the due and timely payment
and performance of the Obligations, Assignor hereby pledges and grants to Assignee a security
interest and lien in and to the Patents and all proceeds thereof and gives notice of such
security interest and the existence of such Security Agreement providing therefor.



     Executed as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	Assignor:	 	 	 	Assignee:	 	 
	 
	Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.	 	 	 	PARTNERS FOR GROWTH III, L.P.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By	 	/s/ David L. Martin	 	 	 	By	 	/s/ Lorraine Nield	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Lorraine Nield	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Manager, Partners for Growth III, LLC	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Its General Partner	 	 
	By

	 	/s/ James E. Flaherty	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Secretary
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Juma Technology, Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony Fernandez,
the Chief Financial 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) 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/ Anthony
  FernandezAnthony
      FernandezChief
      Financial Officer





May 13,
2010
#### Jerry JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56078.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

July 25, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 22, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 14, 1989.

Lucy Liggett, Asst. Public Defender, Clayton, for appellant.

William, L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Jerry Jones, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).