alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

           FRED A. ALLARDYCE, SENIOR EXECUTIVE OF AMERICAN STANDARD'S
                         MEDICAL BUSINESS GROUP, RESIGNS

         Piscataway, New Jersey - November 4, 1999 - American Standard announced
today that Fred A.  Allardyce,  Senior Vice  President of American  Standard and
Business  Leader of the Medical  Systems  Group,  has  resigned  his position to
pursue other interests. Allardyce has led the Medical Systems Group since it was
established in 1997. American Standard announced its intent to sell the business
in October, and is actively engaged in preparations to sell the business.

         American Standard,  with annual sales exceeding $7 billion, is a global
manufacturer  with  market  leading  positions  in three  PRINCIPAL  BUSINESSES:
TRANE(R),  the nations' leading  supplier of central air conditioning  equipment
for  commercial  and  institutional  BUILDINGS  AND  THE  PRIMER  BRAND  FOR THE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS;  AMERICAN STANDARD(R) AND IDEAL STANDARD(R),  the world's
largest MANUFACTURER OF PLUMBING PRODUCTS; AND WABCO(R), the leading supplier of
electronic  braking  and  control  systems  to  the  world's   manufacturers  of
heavy-duty trucks and buses. The Company employs  approximately 57,000 people in
33 countries. American Standard is included in the Standard & Poor's MidCap 400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lisa Glover (732) 980-6048  (Press Inquiries)
Ray Pipes (732) 980-6095 (Analyst Inquiries)

THE  LATEST  NEWS   RELEASE   AND   CORPORATE   INFORMATION   CAN  BE  HEARD  ON
1-888-ASD-NEWS.  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AMERICAN STANDARD IS AVAILABLE ON THE
COMPANY'S WORLDWIDE WEB SITE AT HTTP://WWW.AMERICANSTANDARD.COM
H. R. 3917

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 695 Marconi

Boulevard in Copiague, New York, as the ‘‘Maxine S. Postal United States Post

Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

695 Marconi Boulevard in Copiague, New York, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Maxine S. Postal United States Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Maxine

S. Postal United States Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of NWT Uranium Corp. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:



(i)  the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December  31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),

as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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





|                    |                                                  | 
|------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ | 
|Date: July 10, 2008 | /s/ John Lynch                                   | 
|                    | John Lynch
President and Chief Executive Officer | 



The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3874

AN ACT

To convey for public purposes certain Federal lands

identified for disposal.in Riverside County, California, that have been

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3874

AN ACT

To convey for public purposes certain Federal lands in Riverside County, California, that have been identified for

disposal.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3874 EH

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGE2 MENT LAND IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALI3 FORNIA.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—

5 (1) CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary of the Inte6 rior shall convey, without consideration and subject

7 to valid existing rights, to S.V.D.P. Management

8 Inc-DBA Father Joe’s Villages (referred to in this

9 section as the ‘‘Villages’’), all right, title, and inter10 est of the United States in and to the parcel de11 scribed in paragraph (2) for use by the Villages for

12 the purposes described in subsection (b).

13 (2) PARCEL.—The parcel referred to in para14 graph (1) is the parcel of land identified for disposal

15 and consisting of approximately 44 acres under the

16 jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, as

17 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘H.R. 3874

18 Coachella Valley Land Transfer’’ and dated March

19 5, 2004.

20 (b) PURPOSES OF CONVEYANCE.—The purposes of

21 the conveyance under section (a) are to provide a homeless

22 shelter, a training center, and affordable housing.

23 (c) REVERTER.—If the Villages or any subsequent

24 owner of the land transferred under this section uses that

25 land for purposes other than those described in subsection

26 (b), all right, title, and interest to the land (and any im-
3

•HR 3874 EH

1 provements thereon) shall revert to the United States to

2 be administered by the Bureau of Land Management if

3 the Secretary of the Interior determines that such a rever4 sion is in the best interests of the United States.

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Maria Isabel RAMIREZ-ALDANA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73534.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 10, 2004.

Raul E. Godinez, Law Office of Raul E. Godinez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Paul Fiorino, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Isabel Ramirez-Aldana is a native and citizen of Colombia. She petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s finding that Ramirez-Aldana is ineligible for asylum because her application was not filed within a year of her last arrival to the United States. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); *Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002).

We have jurisdiction to review the remainder of the BIA’s decision pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and deny the petition for review. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that a guerrilla group’s extortion efforts did not constitute persecution on account of Ramirez-Aldana’s political opinion. *See Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. at 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812 (holding *564that petitioner is required to show that guerrillas persecuted him “because of’ his political opinion). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Ramirez-Aldana is ineligible for withholding of removal. *See Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir.2001).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Ramirez-Aldana is ineligible for relief under CAT. *See Singh v. Ashcroft,*351 F.3d 435, 442-43 (9th Cir.2003).

Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), and *Salvador-Calleros v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.2004), petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was granted, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, as of the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 23

- 00124

- CV

JEANNIE BURTON

, Appellant

v.

ANTONIO ASCENSIO UGARTE

, Appellee

From the 443rd District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 101,521

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jeannie Burton filed a pro se notice of appeal in this matter on April 26,

2023 . Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that a notice of appeal must be

filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1. The final

judgment in this case was signed by the trial court on September 2, 2022. Because the

notice of appeal was filed more tha n thirty days after the trial court’s September 2, 2022

judgment was signed, the notice of appeal is untimely.Burton v. Ugarte Page 2 By letter dated June 1, 2023, t he Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that this

appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because it appeared that her notice

of appeal was untimely. The Clerk of the Court notified Appellant that the Court may

dismiss the appeal unless, within ten days of the date of the letter

, Appellant show ed

grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant has not done so.

Because our jurisdiction depends on a timely notice of appeal and because

Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See id. R. 42.3(a); H owlett v. Tarrant Cnty. , 301 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth

2009, pet. denied) (“A timely

- filed notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on this court, and

absent a timely filed notice of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal.” (citing Verburgt v.

Dorner

, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997))).

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

B efore Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson , and

Justice Smith

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 28, 2023

[CV06]
Exhibit31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



March 26, 2012



I, Thomas A. Davidson, Vice President and senior officer in
charge of securitization of CDF Funding, Inc., 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 GE Dealer
Floorplan Master Note Trust (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 servicers
have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and BNY Mellon Trust
of Delaware.



| |        | /s/ Thomas A Davidson                                                              
| | ------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name:  | Thomas A. Davidson                                                                 
| | Title: | Vice President and senior officer in charge of securitization for CDF Funding, Inc.
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 34 Filed: 10/27/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:78
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

ABC Corporation I, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:20−cv−04806

Honorable Thomas M.

Durkin

The Partnership and Unincorporated Associations

Identified on Schedule "A", et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, November 15, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: In light of the recent

Federal Circuit decisions vacating the preliminary injunctions, the motions to clarify [567]

and [560] are denied as moot. Similarly, the pending decision as to damages for the

Court's previous finding that Defendants were in contempt of the preliminary injunction

[444] is also moot. Lastly, the motion to increase the bond associated with the preliminary

injunction [576] is denied as moot because the injunction has been vacated. The Court

understands from the recent status report [602] that Defendants intend to pursue damages

for imposition of the injunction in light of the Federal Circuit's decisions. Defendants

expressed this intent in the context of their motion to increase the bond. But because the

injunction is vacated a bond is no longer appropriate. If Defendants seek damages, they

must file a motion. Defendants, however, should not file any such motion before the status

hearing set for 11/17/22. Mailed notice. (ecw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 603 Filed: 11/15/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:14443
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RODNEY DARYL SQUIRES

No. 484A96

(Filed 9 May 1997)

Appeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from an unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 124 N.C. App. 231, 477 S.E.2d 97 (1996), affirming the judgment entered by Eagles, J., on 29 June 1995 in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 April 1997.

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by J. Philip Allen, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Richard M. Dailey, Jr., and A. Wayland Cooke for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT T. BENNAFIELD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (CR-00-57)

Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 11, 2005

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert T. Bennafield, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,

II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert T. Bennafield seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Bennafield 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Jay A. Heller

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−05220

Honorable Mary M. Rowland

Caine & Weiner Company, L.L.C.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, December 4, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: In light of the notice of

voluntary dismissal, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Mailed notice. (dm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-05220 Document #: 11 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:21
EXHIBIT 32.2


                Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      --------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Patriot Scientific
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended February 28, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Lowell W. Giffhorn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

      1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ LOWELL W. GIFFHORN
                                                      ----------------------
                                                      Name:  Lowell W. Giffhorn
                                                      Title:  Exec. V.P. and CFO
                                                      Date: April 18, 2005
1The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations

of the Honorable John F. Forster, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2354

___________

Lenzy McCullough, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

M. D. Reed, Arkansas Department of *

Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 7, 1999

 Filed: April 12, 1999

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Lenzy McCullough appeals from the district court&s

1

 dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against M. D. Reed, Warden at the Cummins Unit of the

Arkansas Department of Correction. McCullough alleged that he was exposed to

asbestos when a maintenance crew cut into concrete in his barracks, and he claimed
2–

that Reed was deliberately indifferent to his health and safety. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court

properly dismissed the complaint because McCullough failed to allege facts from

which an inference could be drawn that Reed knew McCullough was at risk of being

exposed to asbestos dust. See Prater v. Dahm, 89 F.3d 538, 541 (8th Cir. 1996)

(correctional officers entitled to dismissal because inmate alleged no facts supporting

inference that they actually knew of risk to inmate).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Barry F. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George E. CURRIE; Michael A. Munns, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-7267.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 18, 2004.

Decided Dec. 23, 2004.

Barry F. Robinson, Appellant pro se.

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Barry F. Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm because Robinson failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. *See Robinson v. Currie,*No. CA-04-373-CT (E.D.N.C. July 13, 2004). 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.

*AFFIRMED*