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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6724

TEX HOLBROOK, II,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,

District Judge. (2:12-cv-00953)

Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tex Holbrook, II, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg, 

Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tex Holbrook, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

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

(2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Holbrook has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny Holbrook’s “Motion for Court to Review Facts Supporting 

Petitioner’s Actual and Factual Innocence,” deny a certificate 

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 
3

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
|    |                                                                           |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of RPX Corporation; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|                      |
|----------------------|
|                      |  |
| Date: April 30, 2018 |   |
|                 | /s/ DAVID J. ANDERSON |
|                 | David J. Anderson |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
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

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  the  undersigned  officer of Goldman
Sachs Hedge Fund Strategies LLC, hereby  certifies that Goldman Sachs Hedge
Fund  Partners,  LLC's (the  "Company's")  Form 10-K for the  period  ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of
Section 13(a) or 15(d),  as applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

                                            /s/ George H. Walker
                                           --------------------------------
                                           Name:    George H. Walker
                                           Title:   Chief Executive Officer

Date:  March 29, 2005


     The foregoing  certification  is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.  1350  and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a
separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 filing by CDEX Inc. (the "Company") of its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010 (the "Report") I, Stephen A. McCommon, 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:


(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Financial Officer of CDEX Inc. with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other purposes. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CDEX Inc. and will be retained by CDEX Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/  Stephen A. McCommonStephen A. McCommonChief Financial OfficerDate: June 30, 2011
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN MOSS.

July 23, 1985.

Petition for certification denied. (See — *N.J.Super.*—)
News United States Air Force
 AF Secretariat releases 2019 selection board schedulePublished Aug. 29, 2018
                        
                        By  Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force’s Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force Selection Board Secretariat has released the calendar year 2019 selection board schedule.
The Selection Board Secretariat conducts approximately 100 boards per year and the schedule includes dates for the master, senior master and chief master sergeant evaluation boards, senior noncommissioned officer supplemental boards, officer selection boards and the colonel command screening board.
To see the schedule, visit the **Promotions** page of the Air Force’s Personnel Center website. The schedule is also posted to myPers; select “Any” from the dropdown menu and search “CY19 Board Schedule.”officer 



promotion 



colonel 



selection 



schedule 



Air Force Personnel Center 



release 



evaluation 



Senior NCO 



master 



board 



senior master 



chief master 



2019 



Selection Board Secretariat 



selection board 



command board 



secretariat 



AFPC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              31
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,906
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,488
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,488
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Sept. 19Published Sept. 19, 2017
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Robbie Arp
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** – On this look around the Air Force, the Air Force Association holds its Air, Cyber and Space Conference in National Harbor, Md., to discuss a multitude of Air Force topics. Hosted by Tech. Sgt. Robbie Arp.
For previous episodes, clickhere for the Air Force TV page.ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Featured Videos 



SecAF 



Secretary of the Air Force 



Heather Wilson 



Air Force Association
#### Marion L. CLARK, Appellant, v. LUCKY FOODS et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 22, 1971.

Edwin Cohen, Cohen & Cohen, Louisville, for appellant.

William Lehnig, Duncan & Lehnig, Louisville, for Lucky Foods and Otis J. Davidson.

Edwin I. Baer, Louisville, for Richard Fields.

EDWARD P. HILL, Jr., Judge.

A jury returned a verdict against the appellant, Marion L. Clark, the driver of one of the vehicles involved in an accident, and Lucky Foods, the owner, and Otis J. Davidson, the operator of the other vehicle involved, appellees herein.

By this appeal, the appellant presents only one question. He says that he was denied three peremptory challenges given him by KRS 29.290. The appellant has provided this court with only a partial record. According to that record, his first objection to the selection of the jury and to his claimed right to three peremptory challenges is contained in his motion and grounds for a new trial. This objection came too late. Tucker v. Kilgore, Ky., 388 S.W.2d 112 (1965).

The judgment is affirmed.

MILLIKEN, C. J., and NEIKIRK, OSBORNE, PALMORE, and REED, JJ., concur.

STEINFELD, J., not sitting.
S. 2583 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To promote the non-exclusive use of electronic labeling for devices licensed by 

the Federal Communications Commission. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Enhance Labeling, Accessing, 

and Branding of Electronic Licenses Act of 2014’’ or the ‘‘E–LABEL 

Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) The Federal Communications Commission (referred to 

in this section as the ‘‘Commission’’) first standardized physical 

labels for licensed products such as computers, phones, and 

other electronic devices in 1973, and the Commission has 

continually refined physical label requirements over time. 

(2) As devices become smaller, compliance with physical 

label requirements can become more difficult and costly. 

(3) Many manufacturers and consumers of licensed devices 

in the United States would prefer to have the option to provide 

or receive important Commission labeling information digitally 

on the screen of the device, at the discretion of the user. 

(4) An electronic labeling option would give flexibility to 

manufacturers in meeting labeling requirements. 

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC LABELING. 

Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 720. OPTIONAL ELECTRONIC LABELING OF COMMUNICATIONS 

EQUIPMENT. 

‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

‘‘(1) the term ‘electronic labeling’ means displaying required 

labeling and regulatory information electronically; and 

‘‘(2) the term ‘radiofrequency device with display’ means 

any equipment or device that— 

‘‘(A) is required under regulations of the Commission 

to be authorized by the Commission before the equipment 

or device may be marketed or sold within the United States; 

and 

‘‘(B) has the capability to digitally display required 

labeling and regulatory information. 
S. 2583—2 

‘‘(b) REQUIREMENT TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS FOR ELEC- TRONIC LABELING.—Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of the Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic Licenses Act of 2014, the Commission shall promulgate regulations or take other appropriate action, as necessary, to allow 

manufacturers of radiofrequency devices with display the option 

to use electronic labeling for the equipment in place of affixing 

physical labels to the equipment.’’. 

SEC. 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE. 

The amendment made by section 3 shall not be construed 

to affect the authority of the Federal Communications Commission 

under section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

302a) to provide for electronic labeling of devices. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Peter H. van Oppen, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Advanced Digital Information Corporation;



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 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 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 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 the 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.



|                          |  |                                                      
|------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: September 10, 2004 |  | /s/ PETER H. VAN OPPEN                               
|                          |  | Peter H. van Oppen, Chair and Chief Executive Officer
* Hon. Theresa L. Springmann, District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana,

sitting by designation. 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

August 16, 2010

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, District Judge *

No. 08

‐ 1401

JOSEPH PRICE, Appeal from the United States

Petitioner

‐ Appellant

, District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Western Division.

v.

No. 07 C 50111

GUY PIERCE,

Respondent

‐ Appellee

. Frederick J. Kapala,

Judge

.

ORDER

The slip opinion of August 13, 2010, is amended as follows:

On the top of page 10, second line, “§ 2255 ” is deleted and replaced with “§ 2254.”
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7941

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RALPH FERRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-93-226, CA-94-1109-2)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph Ferry, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Appellant that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order

based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant

failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v.

Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S.

1208 (1984); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after

receiving proper notice. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the

district court. 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
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Don R. Kornstein, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 included inthis 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: September 28, 2007 /s/ Don R. Kornstein   Don R. Kornstein   Chief Restructuring Officer