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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6262

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

COY HAZEL HOWE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CR-01-234, CA-01-3931)

Submitted: May 19, 2003 Decided: June 11, 2003

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Coy Hazel Howe, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Coy Hazel Howe seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order denying a motion

under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district

court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Howe has not

made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1039 (2003). 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 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES

|1. | e-Auction Global Trading Inc. (Barbados),
        a Barbados corporation, wholly-owned by the Company                                                   
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|2. | Aucxis Corp. (Canada), a Canadian corporation,
        wholly-owned by e-Auction Global Trading Inc. (Barbados)                                         
|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|3. | Aucxis NV, a Belgium Company, wholly-owned
        by the Company                                                                                       
|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|4. | Aucxis Trading Systems NV (ATS)
        (formerly Schelfhout Computer Systemen N.V)., a Belgium corporation, owned
        97.5 by Aucxis NV (Belgium)
|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|5. | Auction Trading Services Nederland BV
        (ATS Holland), a Holland corporation of which ATS has a 33.3%
        interest                          
|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|6. | SDL Invest N.V., a Belgian corporation
        incorporated March 22, 2000, in which ATS has a 40% ownership interest.                                  
|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|7. | v-Wholesaler N.V. (a holding company),
        wholly-owned by the Company. (currently controlled by a bankruptcy trustee)                              
|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|8. | i-Three Inc., wholly-owned by the Company                                                                                                               

---
**Exhibit 31(b)**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, David C. Stuebe, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (this “Report”) of Alpha NaturalResources, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 2.  Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this Report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport; 4.  The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisReport is being prepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;
5.  The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ David C. Stuebe
#### Hoopers Restaurant System Inc., Respondent, v City of New Rochelle et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to declare invalid a building moratorium ordinance, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered April 4, 1989, which denied their motion for a protective order vacating the plaintiffs notices of deposition served upon the defendants Leonard Paduano and Francis X. Judge.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to set a new timetable for the conducting of depositions.

As the Supreme Court correctly determined and as defense counsel recognized in his motion papers, while inquiry may not be made into the motivation behind the enactment of a particular piece of legislation, disclosure may be had as to the purposes of the legislation *(see, Tilles Inv. Co. v Town of Oyster Bay,*139 AD2d 575; *Redco v Town of Oyster Bay,*87 AD2d 647; *Reformed Church v City of Yonkers,*8 AD2d 639). Moreover, contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the plaintiff was entitled to name the public officers it sought to depose in the first instance *(see,*CPLR 3106 [d]), and the mere fact that those public officers may be members of the Council of the City of New Rochelle does not excuse them from appearing at examinations before trial *(see, Tilles Inv. Co. v Town of Oyster Bay, supra; Aronson v City of Mount Vernon,*116 AD2d 613). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 2983 Lower Tribunal No. 2017

- CC

- 015403

- O

_____________________________ N AVY F EDERAL C REDIT U NION , Appellant ,

v. S URF C ONSULTANTS , I NC

. and A MII G RIFFIN , Appellee s
.

_____________________________ Appeal from the C ounty Court for Orange County

. Tina L. Caraballo , Judge. August 13, 2024
PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. WOZNIAK and GANNAM , J J ., and BERLIN, S.D., Associate Judge , c oncur.

W. Patrick Ayers and Benjamin Coulter , of Burr & Forman, LLP , Tampa , for Appellant. Ryan E. Sprechman, of Sprechman & Fisher, P.A. , Miami , for Appellee , Surf Consultants, Inc

. No A ppearance for Appellee, Amii Griffin.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Exhibit 10.35

AMENDMENT
TO THE STATION CASINOS, INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
FOR EXECUTIVES (ORIGINALLY EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 30, 1994 AND AMENDED
AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2001) (THE "PLAN")

The
following amendments to the Plan have been duly adopted by the Human Resources Committee (the "Committee") of the Board of Directors of Station Casinos, Inc. (the "Company")
in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Plan. Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan.

1.    Effective
as of December 4, 2002, the second sentence of Section 4(a) is amended to read as follows:



2.    Effective
as of December 4, 2002, the first sentence of Section 5(d) is amended to read as follows:



3.    Effective
as of December 4, 2002, Section 7 is amended to read as follows:



---

QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [CERCLA-04-2020-2504; FRL 10023-83-Region 4]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of extended comment period.

# SUMMARY:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of settlement on April 9, 2021, FRL 10020-84-Region 4, concerning the JCC Environmental Superfund Site located in Picayune, Mississippi. The settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for a cleanup action performed by the EPA at the Site. The settling parties listed with the settlement on the Agency's website was incomplete. The complete listing of parties is now available via the below web address. The agency will be extending the comment period 30 days after the date of this publication.

# DATES:

The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until July 9, 2021. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

# ADDRESSES:

Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:

*Internet: https://www.epa.gov/​aboutepa/​about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices*.                    

*Email: Painter.Paula@epa.gov*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Paula V. Painter at (404) 562-8887 Email:                         *Painter.Paula@epa.gov.*

Erika White,

Acting Chief, Enforcement Branch, Superfund & Emergency Management Division.

[FR Doc. 2021-12054 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


     In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of W. S.  INDUSTRIES,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the period  ending  February 28, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, James F. Dempsey,  Chief  Financial  Officer,  respectively,  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 to my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 29, 2006


/s/ JAMES F. DEMPSEY
___________________________
    James F. Dempsey
    Chief Financial Officer
#### Eleanor Glasberg, Respondent, v Edwin Glasberg, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered December 13, 1982, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), entered August 22, 1988, as awarded the plaintiff 50% of the funds maintained in his pension and profit-sharing plans as of November 30, 1980, and 50% of the earnings on those funds between the date of the commencement of the action and the date of the trial.

Ordered, that the order is modified, by (1) adding to decretal paragraph 3 (b) the words "of $64,110” after the words "account balance” and (2) adding to decretal paragraph 10 (b) the words "of $122,455” after the words "account balance”; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Upon review of the respective financial circumstances of the parties, the duration of the marriage and the wife’s contributions to the marital relationship as a homemaker and parent, we conclude that the court did not err in awarding the wife a lump sum payment equal to 50% of the funds maintained in the husband’s pension and profit-sharing plans as of the date the matrimonial action was commenced *(see, e.g., Marcus v Marcus,*137 AD2d 131; *Gluck v Gluck,*134 AD2d 237). Although, as a consequence of this award, the wife received a greater share than the husband of the parties’ total marital assets, we find that the award was justified in view of the parties’ financial circumstances, including the husband’s substantial separate assets *(see, Ruvolo v Ruvolo,*133 AD2d 364).

The parties stipulated as to the amount of funds maintained by the husband in the pension and profit-sharing plans which *587accumulated during the marriage and prior to the commencement of the action. The husband does not dispute that these funds constituted marital property *(see, Majauskas v Majauskas,*61 NY2d 481; *Marcus v Marcus, supra).*However, the husband contends that the court erred in awarding the wife 50% of the interest earned on those funds between the date the action was commenced and the date of the trial. Contributions to a spouse’s pension fund after a matrimonial action is commenced constitute separate property and are therefore not subject to equitable distribution *(see, Marcus v Marcus, supra).*Here, the parties stipulated to the amount of interest which was earned on the marital portion of the funds maintained in the husband’s pension and profit-sharing plans and excluded from the calculations any contributions to the plans after the action was commenced. Under these circumstances, we find no error in the court’s decision to award to the wife 50% of the interest earned on the marital portion of those funds. The language in the order has been modified to clarify that the amount of earnings awarded to the wife is to be based solely on the marital portion of the funds in the husband’s plans as of November 30, 1980. Bracken, J. P., Hooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5634 

To prohibit institutions of higher education from mandating COVID–19 

vaccines for students or staff. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 

Mr. GOOD of Virginia (for himself, Mr. OGLES, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. HIGGINS

of Louisiana, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. ROUZER, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. 

MCCORMICK, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, 

Mr. CLYDE, Mr. BABIN, Mr. DAVIDSON, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. 

CLOUD, and Mr. GUEST) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prohibit institutions of higher education from mandating 

COVID–19 vaccines for students or staff. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Vaccine Mandates 

5 in Higher Education Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5634 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON COVID–19 VACCINE MANDATES IN 

2 HIGHER EDUCATION. 

3 (a) PROHIBITION.—No Federal funds may be made 

4 available to any institution of higher education that re5 quires its students or staff to receive a COVID–19 vaccine 

6 as a condition of enrollment or employment, or receiving 

7 any benefit, service, or contract. 

8 (b) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION DE9 FINED.—In this Act, the term ‘‘institution of higher edu10 cation’’ has the meaning given the term in section 102 

11 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
1The signature line on the request for an appeal was not signed by appellant and

attorney Bryan Adamson signed the request as “reviewed in substance.” Rule 6.1 of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that the attorney whose name first appears

on the notice of appeal is lead counsel.

NO. 07-03-0533-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MAY 27, 2004

______________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

KAREN SUE BEDFORD AND STEVEN EDWARD BEDFORD

_________________________________

FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 67,701-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Steven Edward Bedford filed a “request for an appeal” challenging an

agreed final decree of divorce.1

 The clerk’s record was filed on January 21, 2004; however,

no reporter’s record was filed. Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on February 20, 2004,
2

but has yet to be filed and no motion for extension of time was filed. By letter dated April

28, 2004, this Court notified attorney Bryan Adamson of the missed deadline and also

directed him to reasonably explain the failure to file a brief with a showing that appellee has

not been significantly injured by the delay on or before May 10, 2004. Counsel did not

respond and the brief remains outstanding.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply

with an order of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b) & (c).

Don H. Reavis

 Justice
EXHIBIT
32.1
  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 BlueSky Systems, Corp. (the
"Company") for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Duane
Bennett, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify that:
 
 *   the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  *   information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  /s/ Duane
Bennett
 Duane
Bennett
 President,
Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief
Financial Officer, Controller
 
 August
17, 2008
 
  This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 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 us for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 * We
      plan to evaluate properties not listed for sale because of the potential
      benefit of acquiring a property in a particular location at a lower cost
      by not having to pay realtor commissions or other costs and fees
      associated with purchasing properties only listed for sale with
      realtors.
#### Central National-Gottesman Inc., Respondent, v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Appellant.

—Upon the stipulation of the parties dated May 16, 1990, the appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on June 21, 1988, is withdrawn, without costs and without disbursements. The motion to hold the appeal in abeyance is dismissed as moot. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5734

A.W. Chesterton Company:

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel