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

**No. 14**  **- 7216** 

MARK A. GRETHEN , 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
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv - 00698

- RBS

- DEM )

Submitted : March 27, 2015 Decided: April 7, 2015

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Mark A. Grethen, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM: Mark A. Grethen seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying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 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

c ertificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 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. Cock rell , 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 const itutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grethen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismis s the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
1

The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3746

___________

Richard L. Krone, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States District

* Court for the District of Minnesota.

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 17, 1999

Filed: July 21, 1999

___________

Before BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and REASONER,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard L. Krone appeals from a judgment of the district court2

 upholding a

denial of social security disability insurance benefits. We affirm.
-2-

In 1993 Krone applied for benefits, alleging a disability beginning on January

14, 1991, due to disabling pain resulting from a 1983 automobile accident in which he

sustained muscle strain. After two hearings, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied

benefits.

Contrary to Krone's argument on appeal, the ALJ did not err in failing to develop

the record as to a possible mental impairment. An ALJ is not required "to order a

consultative evaluation of every alleged impairment." Matthews v. Bowen, 879 F.2d

422, 424 (8th Cir. 1989). Despite some evidence of a possible mental impairment in

1984, Krone continued to work and thus any impairment was not disabling. In fact, at

oral argument, Krone's counsel indicated if this court were to remand, all he wanted

was the opportunity to present evidence from Krone's treating doctor, who had noted

depression and anxiety in 1993 and 1994, which was after the expiration of Krone's

insured status in March 1992. Even assuming this evidence is of some relevance, it is

not helpful since in a 1994 assessment the doctor indicated Krone could work. 

Nor did the ALJ err in applying the factors set forth in Polaski v. Heckler, 739

F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984) (subsequent history omitted) in discounting Krone's

allegations of disabling pain. As the ALJ noted, there were many inconsistencies

between Krone's testimony and medical records indicating Krone was working and his

pain medication was effective and had no significant side effects.

Finding no error of law or fact, we affirm on the basis of the district court's

opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.
-3-

 Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 WARREN RESOURCES, INC. 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 Warren Resources, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Norman F. Swanton, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Norman F. SwantonNorman F. SwantonChairman of the BoardAnd Chief Executive Officer
 November 11, 2004 A signed original of this original statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Warren Resources, Inc., and will be retained by Warren Resources,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. 27
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2043 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2043

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2004

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate a Federal building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the 
                  ``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RONALD REAGAN FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at 228 Walnut 
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the 
``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the building referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Ronald 
Reagan Federal Building.

            Passed the Senate March 12, 2004.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
**Exhibit 31.02**

 

**Certifications**

 

I, Edward Escudero, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Petro Stopping Centers Holdings, L.P.; 

 

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 tomake 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 financialcondition, 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 theeffectiveness 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 mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of 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 financialreporting 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 19, 2005 

 

/s/ Edward Escudero 

----
#### STATE v. WHITE

No. 94A94-4

Case below: Mecklenburg County Superior Court

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the order of Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, denied 20 August 2001. Motion by defendant for stay of execution of judgment denied 20 August 2001. (See also White v. Easley, infra)
A p r i l 2 0 2 4 w e a t h e r s u m m a r y a t W a l l o p s F l i g h t F a c i l i t y

wind advisories

lightning advisories

lightning warnings

9 

days

lowest low

9

5

13

highest high

63.1

54.2

45.3

66.2

57.6

48.9

AVG HIGH 

TEMP

AVG TEMP AVG LOW 

TEMP

C L I M O V S 2 0 2 4

W

I

N

D

WEATHER

A L E R T S

MAX WIND 

GUST 

56

MPH

2.91”

1.37”

APRIL

CLIMO

APRIL

'24

T O T A L P R E C I P

10.1

days

C

L

I

M

O

2

0

2

4

P R E C I P I T A T I O N

T E M P E R A T U R E

PRECIP DAYS

A p r C l i m o A p r ‘ 2 4

April was drier than normal!

DRY AVG WET

J F M

A M J

J A S

O N D

HOT AVG COLD

April was warmer than normal!
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
registrant's consolidated statement of income for the year ended December 31,
1999 and consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1999 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       59
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1
<INVENTORY>                                         26
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    97
<PP&E>                                              85
<DEPRECIATION>                                      47
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               55
<BONDS>                                             40
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                          57
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       160
<SALES>                                            255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   255
<CGS>                                              156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     19
<INCOME-TAX>                                         8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 11
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        11
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000893046
<NAME>                        Rent-Way, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     0

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         3,752
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    232,133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         76,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                 23,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 627,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        297,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       256,842
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   627,067
<SALES>                                        119,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,911
<CGS>                                          31,158
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,347
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                16,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                   6,476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            10,128
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   10,128
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.44



</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-16-00284-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

IWR OPERATING, LLC, Appellant,

v.

SUNBREAKER SERVICES, LLC, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 135th District Court 

of Jackson County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant IWR Operating, LLC has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on grounds 

that a bill of review has been granted setting aside the default judgment subject to appeal 

in this case. Appellant further states that the deadline for appealing the bill of review has 

expired, thereby rendering this appeal moot. 
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion to dismiss and we DISMISS the 

appeal. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See id. R. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement 

of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the 

appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our 

mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

6th day of October, 2016.
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



I, Steve Valenzuela, Chief Financial Officer of Rainmaker Systems, Inc.
(the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    STEVE
VALENZUELASteve Valenzuela Chief Financial Officer




Date: March 22, 2005
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement pertaining to the 2004 Key Employee Stock Option Plan (Form S-8, No. 333-123375), of MainStreet BankShares, Inc. of our report dated February 14, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of MainStreet BankShares, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2006.



/s/ Brown Edwards & Company LLPBrown Edwards & Company LLPCertified Public Accountants


Bluefield, West Virginia

February 15, 2008



114
Exhibit 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Aviation Upgrade Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Torbjorn B. Lundqvist, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                                 /s/  Torbjorn B. Lundqvist
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Torbjorn B. Lundqvist
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 March 27, 2003
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, October 9, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution settlement of administrative proceedings;

Litigation matter

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: October 2, 2014.

Kevin M. O'Neill, 

 Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-23989 Filed 10-3-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  AIMS  Worldwide,  Inc., a  Nevada
corporation  (the  "Company"),  on  Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
2002  as  filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Patrick J. Summers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Sec.  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350), 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;  and

(2)  The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result  of operations of the Company.




/s/Patrick  J.  Summers
--------------------------
Patrick  J.  Summers
Chief  Financial  Officer
April  1,  2003
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DR. MARC ELLMAN, INDIVIDUALLY

AND D/B/A SOUTHWEST EYE

INSTITUTE, VISTA SURGERY

CENTER, LLC, AND AURA

DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

 Appellants,

v.

JC GENERAL CONTRACTORS, AND

JOSE M. CHAVEZ,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-12-00029-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2009-508)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellants and its sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice 

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Larsen, JJ.

Larsen, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment