alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7448

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus STOVER STOCKTON, a/k/a Big Ox, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00352-MJG; 1:06-cv-01949-MJG) Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 27, 2006 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stover Stockton, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick, Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Stover Stockton seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stockton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Stockton’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims- 3 - based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Stockton’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information from Trump's Castle
Hotel & Casino, Inc.  This data has been extracted from the Consolidated
Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three month
period ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001063882
<NAME> TRUMP'S CASTLE HOTEL & CASINO, INC.
<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>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   128
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 128
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Chrysler Group, LLC and 

Infinity County Mutual 

Insurance 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 17, 2015

No. 04-13-00757-CV

Michael TATSCH,

Appellant

v.

CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC and Infinity County Mutual Insurance Company,

Appellees

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12977

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellee Infinity County Mutual Insurance Company’s 

Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is DENIED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of February, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 23, 2009

l0316 

# Order

March 23, 2009

137592

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137592 COA: 277473 Oakland CC: 2006-207232-FC LEROY GEORGE BURSLER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 9, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
News United States Air Force
 Kentucky Air Guardsmen evacuate personnel following Hurricane IrmaPublished Sept. 11, 2017
                        
                        
                        123rd Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AFNS) --**
                For the second time in two weeks, special operators and aircrews from the Kentucky Air National Guard deployed to support hurricane rescue operations, evacuating more than 170 U.S. citizens from the Dutch Caribbean island of St. Maarten today.
Twelve of the unit’s special operators departed from the Kentucky Air National Guard Base in Louisville Sept. 9, 2017, en route to St. Maarten aboard two Kentucky ANG C-130 Hercules aircraft. The Airmen, who comprise two Global Access and Personnel Recovery Teams, are facilitating the evacuation of up to 6,000 U.S. citizens to Puerto Rico, said Maj. Aaron Zamora, the unit’s operations officer.
Specifically, the Airmen are directing air traffic and personnel movement on St. Maarten's airfield so evacuation flights can be executed safely, Zamora said.
Meanwhile, the two Kentucky ANG aircraft and 12 aircrew members that flew the special tactics troops to St. Maarten remained on station to begin evacuating U.S. citizens, according to Capt. Nick Dobson, 165th Airlift Squadron mission planner. The team has airlifted more than 172 people to Puerto Rico.
“I could not be more proud of the Kentucky Air National Guardsmen who volunteered to stand up for these critical missions,” said Col. David Mounkes, 123rd Airlift Wing commander, the parent unit of the 123rd Special Tactics Squadron and 165th Airlift Squadron. “These are the types of missions we train for constantly, and our Airmen are always ready to help out at a moment’s notice anywhere in the world.”
The Kentucky ANG previously deployed more than 80 Airmen to Texas for rescue and recovery operations following Hurricane Harvey.Kentucky ANG 



hurricane irma 



Humanitarian 



123rd STS 



Special Tactics 



C-130 



Hercules 



123rd Airlift Wing 



165th Airlift Squadron 



Saint Marteen
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DALE T. BURNETT.

May 24, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7514** 

GEORGE WILLIAM BRADSHAW, II , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for t he Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg
. John Preston Bailey , Chief District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv - 00034

- JPB

- JES; 3:05

- C R

- 00073

- JPB

- JES

- 1 )

Submitted : May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismi ssed by un published per curiam opinion
. George William Bradshaw, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George William Bradshaw, 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. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certif icate 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

rea sonable 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewe d the record and conclude that Bradshaw 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ADAM ROSEN,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 488 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 7th day of October, 2015, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
##### 



Exhibit 12
 Sybase, Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in thousands, except for ratios)
(Full year for all periods except for six months June 30, 2007)
 Six monthsendedJune 30,2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002Earnings:Income before income taxes
and cumulative effect of an
accounting change
    
    $
    67,135
    
    
    $
    161,318
    
    
    $
    136,714
    
    
    $
    100,966
    
    
    $
    118,095
    
    
    $
    71,209Add: Fixed charges
    
    
    10,907
    
    
    
    21,699
    
    
    
    20,233
    
    
    
    11,988
    
    
    
    13,204
    
    
    
    14,556Total Earnings, as defined
    
    
    78,042
    
    
    
    183,017
    
    
    
    156,947
    
    
    
    112,954
    
    
    
    131,299
    
    
    
    85,765Fixed ChargesInterest Expense
    
    
    4,749
    
    
    
    9,516
    
    
    
    8,116
    
    
    
    308
    
    
    
    62
    
    
    
    198Amortization of debt expense
    
    
    985
    
    
    
    1,969
    
    
    
    1,671
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Estimated interest portion
on rental expense
    
    
    5,173
    
    
    
    10,214
    
    
    
    10,446
    
    
    
    11,680
    
    
    
    13,142
    
    
    
    14,358Total Fixed Charges
    
    
    10,907
    
    
    
    21,699
    
    
    
    20,233
    
    
    
    11,988
    
    
    
    13,204
    
    
    
    14,556Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    7.2
    
    
    
    8.4
    
    
    
    7.8
    
    
    
    9.4
    
    
    
    9.9
    
    
    
    5.9
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      11,214,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  664,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,157,907
<PP&E>                                      15,463,790
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,582,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,290,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,755,784
<BONDS>                                        381,206
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    883,283
<COMMON>                                    28,826,954
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,556,983)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,290,244
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,608,228
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,385,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,696,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,556,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,556,983)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Air Force keeps rescue operations fueledPublished Sept. 1, 2017
                        
                        By Capt. Korey Fratini
                        
                        
                        23rd Wing Public Affairs
                **COLLEGE STATION, Texas (AFNS)  --**
                The Berlin Airlift marked an historical period in U.S. military innovation, the ability to resupply a blockaded city in Germany. As Hurricane Harvey wreaked havoc on South Texas, the storm left areas of Texas flooded and completely unreachable by land.Airmen from 71st Rescue Squadron and 23d Logistics Readiness Squadron conducting forward area refueling point operations were the life blood to air search and rescue missions going Aug. 31, 2017 in Beaumont, Texas.Bringing refueling capabilities to an area cut off by water, the 71st RQS utilized the FARP capabilities of the HC-130J Combat King IIs to extend missions out of Jack Brooks Regional Airport to support search and rescue operations.Due to flooding in Beaumont caused by Hurricane Harvey, the airport was unable to receive fuel shipments to supply fuel to aircraft conducting operations in and around the city.  “Despite dire shortages of fuel and battling constant weather, HC-130J capabilities reduced rescue asset refueling by an hour, thirty minutes each way,” said 1Lt. Dan Cole, a Rescue Tactical Operations Center officer.  “They were absolutely vital in saving lives today.”The HC-130J is the only dedicated fixed-wing personnel recovery platform in the Air Force inventory. It has the capability to carry over 9,000 gallons of fuel which can be transferred to other aircraft in flight or on the ground. It this instance, the crews used their ground refueling capability to refill the airport’s empty tanks.“We passed over 23,000 gallons of fuel to aircraft operating in Beaumont and Port Arthur area,” said Capt. Nelson Willingham, a 71st RQS HC-130J pilot. “Our efforts saved lives and I am extremely proud of the incredible work that our Airmen put into this.”Willingham also noted that because of the training they do every day it allows aircrew who operate the HC-130J to be able to rapidly deploy and support these kinds of operations.The 71st RQS and other Airmen from the 23rd Wing were tasked to support Hurricane Harvey relief operations through coordination with Federal Emergency Management Agency and Texas state agencies.Air Force 



Air Combat Command 



AF 



refueling 



ACC 



FARP 



Combat King II 



HC-130J 



Berlin Airlift 



Air Force Base 



forward area refueling point 



71st Rescue Squadron 



71st RQS 



23rd Logistics Readiness Squadron 



23rd LRS 



Moody AFB
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1319
In Re: DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG, Plaintiff - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (MISC-94-67) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: October 5, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorothy P. Litzenberg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant apparently appeals district court orders that directed her various pleadings be placed in a “miscellaneous file” to be reviewed by the court before they are styled as a new, separate action. We have reviewed the record and have determined that thereis no final appealable order before us to review. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because there is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral orderfor review. We deny Appellant’s motion for trial in another circuit. 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 12.1

Certification by the Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Sean Shenglong Zou, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Xunlei Limited;

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The company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 company 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 company, 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) [Intentionally omitted];

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: April 20, 2015



|    |  |                        |  |                                     
|--- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Sean Shenglong Zou
|    |  | Name:                  |  | Sean Shenglong Zou                  
|    |  | Title:                 |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
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  Encompass  Holdings,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report") 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 the best of
my 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: May 30, 2006               ENCOMPASS HOLDINGS, INC.

                                 By: /s/ LESLIE I. HANDLER
                                 --------------------------
                                 Leslie I. Handler, President