alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RICHARD BROWN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 530 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of June, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,829
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,578
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,361
<PP&E>                                          42,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 218,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,354
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   218,452
<SALES>                                        219,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               219,518
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                19,274
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,697)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3,044)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,653)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.82)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 8.1





                                         Subsidiaries
<TABLE>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Jurisdiction
                                                          of Organization            Name
                                                       ------------------------  ------------
<S>                                                         <C>                   <C>
Ultragaz Participacoes S.A.                                    Brazil              Ultragaz
  Companhia Ultragaz S.A.                                      Brazil              Ultragaz
  SPGas Distribuidora de Gas S.A.                              Brazil              Ultragaz
  Bahiana Distribuidora de Gas Ltda.                           Brazil             Brasilgas
  Utingas Armazenadora S.A.                                    Brazil              Utingas
  LPG International Inc.                                 Cayman Islands              LPG
Oxiteno S.A. - Industria e Comercio                            Brazil              Oxiteno
  Oxiteno Nordeste S.A. - Industria e Comercio                 Brazil              Oxiteno
  Barrington S.L.                                              Spain              Barrington
     Canamex Quimicos S.A. de C.V.                             Mexico              Canamex
  Oxiteno International Co.                            Britain Virgin Islands      Oxiteno
     Oxiteno Overseas Co.                              Britain Virgin Islands      Oxiteno
Ultracargo - Operacoes Logisticas e Participacoes              Brazil
 Ltda.                                                                            Ultracargo
  Melamina Ultra S.A. Industria Quimica                        Brazil              Melamina
  Transultra - Armazenamento e Transporte                      Brazil
    Especializado Ltda.                                                           Transultra
  Terminal Quimico de Aratu S.A. - Tequimar                    Brazil              Tequimar
Imaven Imoveis e Agropecuaria Ltda.                            Brazil               Imaven


                                                                                            1
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7423

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM ODEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:11-cr-00056-JPB-JES-1; 3:16-cv00047-JPB-JES)

Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher William Oden, Appellant Pro Se. Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher William Oden seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 

(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. 

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 reviewed the record and conclude that Oden 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
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project 

Systems Integration and Operationalization (SIO) Demonstration Activity 

The goal of SIO is to work toward commercial UAS operations in the NAS. In order to accomplish that goal, NASA has 

partnered with American Aerospace Technology Incorporated (AATI), Bell, and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems 

(GA-ASI), Inc. to conduct fight demonstrations in the NAS that emulate commercial missions and begin working toward 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certifcation. 

The SIO demonstration activity will take the form of fight demonstrations using various-sized unmanned aircraft built by each 

of the three companies. The fight demonstrations will highlight commercial UAS missions that have the potential to provide 

economic and public beneft. Integrated detect and avoid (DAA) and command and control (C2) systems will provide the 

ability to safely conduct the demonstrations in the NAS. The fight demonstration is expected to increase public awareness 

and acceptance of UAS operations and exercise FAA safety and risk mitigation processes. 

Concurrently, the SIO Partners are working toward FAA type certifcation. While some of the type certifcation efforts are 

expected to extend beyond the SIO activity, progress toward certifcation will exercise FAA UAS certifcation policy. As part 

of the SIO activity, NASA plans to document lessons learned to provide the UAS community with generalized information 

from the Partners’ concepts of operations and operational risk assessments. 

American Aerospace Technology Incorporated 

Mission: Infrastructure inspection at altitudes below 10,000 feet 

Vehicle: Resolute Eagle 

SIO Demonstration Location: Central California 

Bell 

Mission: Critical medical transport in urban areas 

Vehicle: Autonomous Pod Transport 70 (APT 70) 

SIO Demonstration Location: North Texas 

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 

Mission: Infrastructure inspection at altitudes above 10,000 feet 

Vehicle: SkyGuardian 

SIO Demonstration Location: Southern California 

For more information please visit F i f ti l i it https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/programs/iasp/uas htt // / h/ /i /

www.nasa.gov PS–02803–0320
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jenny Marte, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 656]

*409Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 29, 2001, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (three counts), and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years for the possession convictions, concurrent with three concurrent terms of 1 year for the paraphernalia convictions, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against, the weight of the evidence. The evidence warranted the inference of defendant’s guilt under the drug factory presumption *(see*Penal Law § 220.25 [2]). The evidence also warranted the inference that defendant was a participant in a drug-selling operation conducted out of an apartment, and thus was in constructive possession of the contraband found at that location *(see People v Bundy,*90 NY2d 918, 920 [1997]; *People v Abreu,*261 AD2d 297 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 1013 [1999]). The evidence included, among other things, the drug operation’s extensive records, in which defendant’s first name, or variants thereof, appeared repeatedly.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
**Exhibit 24.4**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned directorand/or officer of eLoyalty Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby constitutes and appoints each of Kelly D. Conway and William B. Noon, signing singly, as the undersigned’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact, withfull power and authority and full power of substitution, re-substitution, or revocation, to: 

(a) execute for, in the nameand on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned’s capacity as a director and/or officer of the Company, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2008, together with any and all amendmentsthereto on Form 10-K/A deemed necessary, appropriate, or desirable (collectively, the “Form 10-K”), pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder; 

(b) file the Form 10-K, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission and any stock exchange or market or similar authority on which the Company’s Common Stock is listed for trading and any other governmental or regulatory authority, and otherwise to act for him and on his behalf in connectiontherewith; and 

(c) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the foregoing which, in the opinion ofsuch attorney-in-fact, may be required, appropriate, or desirable to be done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do if personally present, herebyratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or such attorney-in-fact’s substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of Attorney and the rights and powers herein granted. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Power of Attorney as of this 24 day of February 2009.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-81210 and 333-88402) and Form S-8 (Nos.
333-30356, 333-67436, 333-88408 and 333-67650) of Quovadx, Inc. (formerly
XCare.net, Inc.) of our report dated March 23, 2001 relating to the consolidated
financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule, which
appears in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 31, 2003
#### St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company *v.*O’Neal

Opinion delivered March 17, 1924.

Justices of the peace — jurisdictional amount. — Under Const., art. 7, § 49, limiting the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in matters of damage to personal property to cases where the amount in controversy does not exceed $100, the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of a claim for $135, and the circuit court acquired none on appeal.

Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court; *James H. McCollum,*Judge;

reversed.

*J. R. Turner, Gaughan & Sifford*and *D. L. King.*for appellant. •.

The justice of the peace had no jurisdiction, and the circuit court acquired none on appeal. Article 7, § 40, Constitution of 1874; 7 Ark. 258; 10 Ark. 326;-4 Dillon 239; 1 Wallace, v. 337; 10 Watts 299; 13 Ark. 40; 6 Ark. 371; 6 Ark. 41; 6 Ark. 182; 9 Ark. 463; 45 Ark. 346; 44 Ark. 100.

McCulloch, C. J.

Appellee instituted this action against appellant before a justice of the peace of Lafayette County for damages to personal property in the sum of $135, for which amount recovery was prayed. There was a judgment against appellant, rendered by the justice of the peace, from which an appeal was prosecuted to the circuit court, and, on trial anew in .the circuit court, appellee again recovered judgment for damages.

*194The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the amount sought to be recovered, and not merely by the amount recovered, and the 'Constitution of this State (art. 7, § 40) restricts the jurisdiction of justices of the peace “in all matters of damages to personal property” to cases where the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of one hundred dollars. It is evident therefore that the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of the cause of action involved in this case, and the circuit court acquired none on appeal, *Little Rock, M. R. & T. Ry.*v. *Manees,*44 Ark. 100.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and, the trial court being without jurisdiction, judgment will-be entered here dismissing the cause. It is so ordered.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

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

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund XIII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Partnership's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 (the "Report"). The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 Partnership.

Date: November 10, 2004                /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Name:   James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                      Title:  Chief Executive Officer

                                      A   signed   original   of  this   written
                                      statement required by Section 906 has been
                                      provided to CNL Income Fund XIII, Ltd. and
                                      will be  retained by CNL Income Fund XIII,
                                      Ltd. and furnished to the  Securities  and
                                      Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon
                                      request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          26,613
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         119,472
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                41,718
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    314,136
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,174,895
<ALLOWANCE>                                     22,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,732,916
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,528,841
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             45,813
<LONG-TERM>                                     12,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,510
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,732,916
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 85,005
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               16,107
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                12,411
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               113,523
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              64,294
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,221
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           48,302
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   14,050
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,799
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 35,244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,162
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      12,162
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,174
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.90
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.14
<LOANS-NON>                                     23,412
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,418
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                21,411
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   13,464
<RECOVERIES>                                        72
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               22,069
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,362
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                             15,707
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         22,069


</TABLE>
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2266 

To amend the Small Business Act to provide adequate funding for Women’s 

Business Centers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 31, 2004 

Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. KERRY) (for himself, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. HARKIN, 

Mr. BAYH, Mr. PRYOR, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. BINGAMAN, and Mr. LEVIN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to provide adequate 

funding for Women’s Business Centers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Women’s Business 

5 Center Safeguard Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WOMEN’S BUSINESS CENTERS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 29(k) of the Small Busi8 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 656(k)) is amended— 
2 

•S 2266 IS 

1 (1) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(C) FUNDING PRIORITY.—Subject to 

4 available funds, and reservation of funds, the 

5 Administration shall, for each fiscal year, allo6 cate— 

7 ‘‘(i) $150,000 for each women’s busi8 ness center established under subsection 

9 (b), except for any center that requests a 

10 lesser amount; 

11 ‘‘(ii) from the remaining funds, not 

12 more than $125,000, in equal amounts, to 

13 each women’s business center established 

14 under subsection (l), to the extent such 

15 funds are reserved under subsection 

16 (k)(4)(A), except for any center that re17 quests a lesser amount; and 

18 ‘‘(iii) any funds remaining after allo19 cations are made under clauses (i) and (ii) 

20 to new eligible women’s business centers 

21 and eligible women’s business centers that 

22 did not receive funding in the prior fiscal 

23 year under subsection (b). ’’; and 

24 (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by adding at the end 

25 the following: 
3 

•S 2266 IS 

1 ‘‘(v) For fiscal year 2004, 54 per2 cent.’’. 

3 (b) SUNSET DATE.—The amendments made by this 

4 section are repealed on October 1, 2004. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Randall L. Fewel, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



By

/s/ Randall L. FewelRandall L. Fewel, President and Chief Executive Officer




Date: August 5, 2004