alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1)     |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 10, 2010 | By:    | /s/  Greggory Schneider                  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Name: Greggory Schneider,                                                                                                          |   |
|                    |   | Title: Director, Chief Financial and Principal Financial Officer                                                                   |   |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6016

JAMES GREGORY ARMISTEAD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MR. HERRING, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02145-D)

Submitted: April 14, 2021 Decided: April 28, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James G. Armistead, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Gregory Armistead seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 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). 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). When, as here,

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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Armistead 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
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-3662

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Missouri. * Rocky Joseph Gendron, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 15, 2011 Filed: April 19, 2011

___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreemen t, Rocky Gendron pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of “cocaine base (crack cocaine)” in violation of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a)(1), 846. The district court 1 sentenced him to 120 months in prison and 5 y ears of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to w ithdraw and has filed a brie f under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gendron has filed two supplemental briefs.

1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chie f Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.The plea agreement in this case contains a waiver of Gendron’s right to appeal all nonjurisdictional and senten cing issues, except those relati ng to his criminal history and career offender status. We will enfor ce the appeal waiver: the transcript of Gendron’s plea hearing shows that he ente red into both the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily; th e arguments raised on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver; and we cannot see a ny miscarriage of justice that would result from enforcing the waiver in these ci rcumstances, especially because Gendron received the statutory mi nimum sentence. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Finally, having reviewed the record i ndependently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issu es outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal, on the condition that counsel inform Gendron about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for a writ of certiorari.

______________________________

-2-
No. 87-6449.

#### McGovern *v.*Meko.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26037]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Initial Review Group; Minority Programs Review Subcommittee 
B.
    Date: November 8, 2010.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Rebecca H. Johnson, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 
Room 3AN18C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2771, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3d9dcdbddc0dcddc1dbf3dddad4dec09ddddadb9dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="13797c7b7d607c7d617b537d7a747e603d7d7a7b3d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special MinorityInitiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 8, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-26037 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Somsak Chivavibul,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-4 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my
knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.

[Signature Page Follows]



---

|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2016                                                 
|                                                                     
|/s/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL                                                
|Somsak Chivavibul                                                    
|President and Chief Financial Officer (Senior
Securitization Officer)
|Navient Funding, LLC
#### LYDIA BROWN v. GREGG ZIMMERMAN.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, David D. Duncan, Principal Accounting Officer of Main Street Banks, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |     |  |                                              
|----------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: May 9, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ DAVID D. DUNCAN                          
|                  |  |     |  | David D. Duncan, Principal Accounting Officer



27
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of T.A.G. Acquisitions Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2014 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ Chester Meisels
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 14, 2015
Exhibit 31.2
I, Alan B. Levan, certify that:         1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.;         2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;         3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this quarterlyreport, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;         4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:      a. designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;      b. evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and      c. disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and         5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):      a. all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and      b. any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: May 10, 2004
By:/s/Alan B. Levan
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00134

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.B.

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA00106

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Associate Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order terminating

appellant’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal are taxed against appella nt.

SIGNED August 11, 2021.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6140

CLAYTON GEORGE SMITH , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. ( 2:19

- cv - 00072

- RGD

- DEM )

Submitted : March 30, 2022 Decided: April 27, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: S. W. Dawson, DAWSON, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark R

. Herring, Attorney General , Laura Haeberle Cahill, Assistant Attorney General, Toby J. Heytens, Sol icitor General, Michelle S

. Kallen , Martine E. Cicconi, Deputy Solicitors General, Jessica Merry Samuels , Assistant Solicitor General, Kendall T. Burchard, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Clayton George Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on Smith’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on one issue: whether the Virginia state trial court improperly denied Smith’s motion to suppress his incriminating statements, in
contravention of Miranda

. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly , we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Clarke , No.
2:19

- cv - 00072

- RGD

- DEM (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
584 A.2d 236

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS CHOICE.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6028

LEROY SHAW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ROBERT WARD, Warden

of Evans Correctional Institution; WILLIAM

GUNN, Director of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General of the

State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-249-20-BD)

Submitted: January 20, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Shaw appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for a certificate of probable cause so that he may appeal

the district court's dismissal of his request for habeas corpus

relief. Shaw's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended

that Shaw's habeas petition be dismissed based on his failure to

exhaust state remedies, and advised Shaw that his failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Shaw failed to object to the magistrate

judge's recommendation, which the district court adopted.

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. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Shaw waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. In view

of this waiver, we find the propriety of the district court's decision to deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal to be moot.

Even if we were to find that Shaw made the requisite showing for

issuance of a certificate of probable cause, he would not receive

appellate review in light of his waiver.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to

appeal, see Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2068
3

(1997), and dismiss this 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                          THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMA-
                          TION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
                          CONTAINED IN THE FOTOBALL USA, INC. FORM 10-QSB 
                          FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS 
                          QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                          MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                3,547,389
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         1,078,939
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                           2,919,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      7,961,513
<PP&E>                                                1,913,811
<DEPRECIATION>                                          723,344  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        9,472,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 1,114,864
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                 26,767
<OTHER-SE>                                            8,137,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          9,472,643
<SALES>                                               3,601,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      3,601,385
<CGS>                                                 2,227,164
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1,253,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       12,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         132,289
<INCOME-TAX>                                             53,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      79,189
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                             79,189
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               .03
                                               

</TABLE>