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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC AARON LYLES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:03-cr-00484-PJM-4; 8:08-cv-03425-PJM)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Aaron Lyles, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Simms, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Aaron Lyles seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

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

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 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 Lyles 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### OCCANEECHI BAND OF THE SAPONI NATION v. N.C. COMM’N OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

No. 527P01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 649

Petition by defendant for writ of supersedeas denied 8 November 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001. Motion by defendant for temporary stay dissolved 8 November 2001.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ELMER SQUARE, JR.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 31.2

 

I, John K. Grelle, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of BBX Capital Corporation; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

/s/ John K. Grelle

John K. Grelle

Executive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer

Date:  April 26, 2013

 

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Severino Ramon Montijo,

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01017-01-PHX-SPL

DETENTION ORDER

On January 26, 2021, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be released 

on conditions set by the Court.

The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant 

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. §

3143.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

Dated this 26th day of January, 2021.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cr-01017-SPL Document 30 Filed 01/26/21 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Stefanie Payne","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/stefanie-paynenasa-gov\/","title":"University of Utah\u00a0takes top honors in BIG Idea Lunar Forge Challenge\u00a0","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rRKcH7bJBX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/university-of-utah-takes-top-honors-in-big-idea-lunar-forge-challenge\/\">University of Utah\u00a0takes top honors in BIG Idea Lunar Forge Challenge\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/university-of-utah-takes-top-honors-in-big-idea-lunar-forge-challenge\/embed\/#?secret=rRKcH7bJBX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“University of Utah\u00a0takes top honors in BIG Idea Lunar Forge Challenge\u00a0” — NASA\" data-secret=\"rRKcH7bJBX\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/screenshot-2023-11-17-at-10.30.30\u202fam.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":309}
No. 84.

#### Birdsong & Sledge, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Peter McLaren, defendant.

[1.] Affidavits, under our attachment laws, should be signed by the Magistrate before whom they are taken, with the addition of their official description.

[2.] Where the attachment bond is made payable to the individual members of a firm, when the attachment itself is sued out against the firm, and it does not recite that the obligees compose said firm, the bond and attachment are both void.

Attachment, in Muscogee Superior Court. Tried before Judge Alexander, May Term, 1850.

This was an attachment sued out by Peter McLaren, against the firm of Birdsong & Sledge. The affidavit was not attested by the Justice of the Peace, and the bond was made payable to Edward Birdsong and Nathaniel Sledge. The defendants appeared and entered their defence.

On the appeal, a motion was made to quash the attachment, on the ground that there was no affidavit or bond as required by law. The Court allowed the Justice of the Peace to enter his attestation, *nunc fro tunc,*and overruled the objection to the bond. This decision is assigned as error.

There were other exceptions filed, but not decided in the Supreme Court.

W. Dougherty, for plaintiffs in error.

H. Holt, for defendant.

*By the Court.*

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] In *Jackson vs. Valentine,*(3 *Caine’s Rep.*128,) the Supreme Court of New York ruled that the jurats of affidavits, taken before the Judges of the Common Pleas or Commissioners, must be signed by them, with the addition of their official subscriptions— Judges of the Common Pleas to style themselves such, and Commissioners to specify that they are so.

For myself, I believe that the paper purporting to be an affida*522vit, wanting as it did the signature and official attestation of the Magistrate, was a nullity under the attachment laws of this State, and that it was not amendable.

[2.] But the other objection was fatal. The attachment was sued out by McLaren against the firm of Birdsong & Sledge, and the bond was made payable to Edward Birdsong and Nathaniel Sledge, as *individuals,*without reciting that the obligees composed said firm; whereas, the attachment law requires that before granting the attachment, the creditor shall give bond and security in double his debt, payable to the *defendant. Prince,*31. And that all attachments issued and returned in any other manner, shall be null and void. *Ibid.*Now, the *defendant*is the firm of Birdsong & Sledge, and not Edward Birdsong and Nathaniel Sledge. I need not point out the legal consequences which would result from this discrepancy.

Let the judgment be reversed.
EXHIBIT 13

Ultrapar Participações S.A. and Subsidiaries

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Thilo Mannhardt, the Chief Executive Officer, and
André Covre, the Chief Financial Officer of Ultrapar Participações S.A., each certifies that, to the best of their respective 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 Ultrapar Participações S.A.

São Paulo, April 30, 2013



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Thilo Mannhardt    
|Name:  |  | Thilo Mannhardt        
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer

São Paulo, April 30, 2013



|       |  |                                               
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ André Covre                               
|Name:  |  | André Covre                                   
|Title: |  | Chief Financial and Investor Relations Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Stacy Holtz","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/stacy-a-holtznasa-gov\/","title":"STS-62","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RZIu0KHUuT\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-62\/\">STS-62<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-62\/embed\/#?secret=RZIu0KHUuT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-62” — NASA\" data-secret=\"RZIu0KHUuT\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### LEO LOCK, ET AL. v. BLACK & DECKER (U.S.), INC., ET AL.

June 13, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Wallops Flight Facility 3 Day Outlook

ISSUED: 5/3/2024

GREEN: 0-15% Likely YELLOW: 16-40% Likely ORANGE: 41-70% Likely RED: 71-100% Likely 

Category Constraint

AM AM AM

High Tides and Moon Phase

Tomorrow’s

Sunrise/Sunset: / 

Moonrise/Moonset: / 

& Visible & Visible 

This forecast is valid for Wallops 

Flight Facility Operations

This forecast is updated no later 

than 1600L, Monday-Friday

Please contact the Weather 

Forecast Office at ext. 1325 with 

questions

Lightning

Ceiling/Vis

High Winds

Heavy Rain

Flooding

Snow & Ice

Extreme Heat

Extreme Cold

Within 10 miles of WFF

< 500’ and/or < 1 mile

≥ 25kt

Causes localized flooding

High Wind, Surf, Tide

Hazardous to Ops

Wind Chill ≤ 10F

Heat Index ≥ 100F

High: 59F 

E 12-17 G24 kts→ 

E 10-15 G22 kts

Low: 52F

E 9-14 G21 kts → 

E 11-16 G24 kts

High: 68F

S 12-17 G24 kts→ 

S 8-13 G18 kts

Low: 55F

E 10-15 G22 kts → 

SSE 11-16 G23 kts

High: 78F

SW 8-13 G18 kts → 

SSW 8-13 kts

Low: 63F

S 8-13 G19 kts → 

SW 8-13 G18 kts 

& Visible 

Cloudy and 

breezy with a 

slight chance of 

a brief shower 

early. 

Cloudy and 

slightly breezy 

with a very 

slight chance of 

a shower. 

PM PM

Chance of Precipitation

Cloudy and 

breezy with a 

chance of a 

showers after 

dawn. 

Overcast to 

mostly cloudy 

and breezy 

with a slight 

chance of a 

shower late. 

Warmer. 

Mostly cloudy 

with a chance of 

showers. Slight 

chance of a 

t’storm. 

Mostly cloudy 

with scattered 

showers and 

t’storms by late 

afternoon and 

evening. 

Warmer. 

PM

0402L 1605L 5/4/24 5/5/24 5/6/24 Saturday Sunday Monday 0601L 1955L 0451L 1721L 16% 0545L 1814L 8% 0638L 1905L 3%

Wallops Weather Office Briefings & Forecasts: https://www.nasa.gov/wallopsrange/weather-office/
Current Surface Analysis
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/NOAAscales.pdf

Storm Type 24 Hour Observed 

Max Forecast Forecast

Geomagnetic Storms

Solar Radiation 

Storms % chance of ≥ S1 % chance of ≥ S1

Radio Blackouts % chance of R1-R2

% chance of R3-R5

% chance of R1-R2

% chance of R3-R5

Storm Type Minor Moderate Strong Severe Extreme

Geomagnetic

Storms G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

Solar Radiation 

Storms S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Radio 

Blackouts R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Space Weather Outlook

ISSUED: 5/3/2024

For more detailed information about the space weather scales referenced above, please visit the website below. 

Space Weather Scales

5/4/24 5/5/24 G3 None R3 None G1 15 15 7525 7525
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.71

STATE OF ALABAMA     )

JEFFERSON COUNTY     )


                     AMENDMENT TO 1994 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
                        OF CAPSTONE CAPITAL CORPORATION
                    (FORMERLY CRESCENT CAPITAL TRUST, INC.)


                 The Capstone Capital Corporation 1994 Stock Incentive Plan,
which plan was adopted by the Board of Directors of Capstone Capital
Corporation on March 31, 1994, and approved by the Shareholders of Capstone
Capital Corporation on March 31, 1994 (the "Plan"), is hereby amended as
follows:
                 1.       Section 3(a) of the Plan shall be deleted in its
entirety and there shall be substituted in lieu thereof the following:

                          "(a)  Subject to the provisions of Section 3(c) and
                 Section 12 of the Plan, the aggregate number of shares of
                 Common Stock that may be issued or transferred or exercised
                 pursuant to Incentive Stock Awards under the Plan will not
                 exceed the greater of: (i) seven percent (7%) of the Company's
                 outstanding Common Stock, or (ii) one million sixty three
                 thousand six hundred (1,063,600) shares of Common Stock."

                 2.       Except as set forth in Paragraph 1 above, all other
provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged.

                 3.       The changes set forth in this Amendment shall be and
hereby are incorporated in the Capstone Capital Corporation 1994 Stock
Incentive Plan.



Date amendment adopted by Board of Directors:  December 14, 1995.
Date amendment adopted by Shareholders: May 1, 1996.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID PROBASCO.

May 30, 1989.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Kennedy,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03601-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9020 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Mary Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03436-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8765 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DOMINICK BOOKER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 460 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of January, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2398 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 597
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2398

To designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in 
         Ogden, Utah, as the James V. Hansen Federal Building.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2004

Mr. Hatch (for himself and Mr. Bennett) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                             June 24, 2004

               Reported by Mr. Inhofe, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in 
         Ogden, Utah, as the James V. Hansen Federal Building.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in Ogden, 
Utah, shall be known and designated as the ``James V. Hansen Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James V. Hansen 
Federal Building''.

                                                       Calendar No. 597

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2398

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in 
         Ogden, Utah, as the James V. Hansen Federal Building.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 24, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```