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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7562

JOHN PAUL TURNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID S. KUYKENDALL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-1021-R)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 18, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Turner v. Kuykendall, No. CA-95-1021-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 15 and 22,

1995). 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. Appellant's motion to consolidate cases is denied.

DISMISSED
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Starlight Consulting Services , STARLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES, INC., STARLIGHT MUSIC MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, UNKNOWN STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL, Servicing the State Agencies

- Franchise Tax Board , Defendants

- Appellees

_____________________ _

2024

- 1964

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 5:17

- cv

- 02886

- BLF, Judge Beth Labson Freeman.

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

I n 2017

, Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez brought suit against appellees in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging , among other things

, various civil rights and antitrust violations and Case: 24-1964 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2024CALDERON LOPEZ v. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 2

seeking $200,000 in damages

. On November 1 , 20 18 , the district court dismissed the case for failure to pa y the filing fee

. On June 1 3 , 2024, Mr. Calderon Lopez filed a notice of appeal from a decision entered “ 11/01/2018 ” in the district court action

. The notice of appeal was transmitted to this court, and i t appears an appeal from the same district court decision is also pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Calderon

- Lopez v. Off

. of the Cal. Sec’y of State , No. 24

- 3808 (9th Cir. June 20, 2024).

As this court has informe d Mr. Calderon Lopez, 1 o ur jurisdiction to review district court decisions is generally limited to cases involving the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2 ), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). Mr. Calderon Lopez’s case does not fall within that jurisdiction. We conclude that dismissal, rather than transfer, is appropriate at least because an appeal from the same district court action is also pending in the Ninth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1294

. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The appeal is dismissed

.

1 See In re Calderon Lopez , Appeal No. 2023

- 133, ECF No. 23 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2023); Calderon Lopez v. O’Malley , Appeal No. 2024

- 1698, ECF No. 7 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. United States , Appeal No. 2024

- 1947, ECF No. 4 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2024). Case: 24-1964 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2024CALDERON LOPEZ v. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 3

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

July 23 , 2024 Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 24-1964 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2024
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2
                            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 Annual Report of Millipore Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kathleen B. Allen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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/ Kathleen B. Allen



Kathleen B. Allen
Chief Financial Officer
March 12, 2003
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Joshua H. Levine, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mentor Corporation (the “Company”),do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.Dated: May 30, 2007/s/JOSHUA H. LEVINE
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4086 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,5-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 3,3′- 

[1,3-propanediylbis[imino(6-fluoro- 1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl)imino[2- 

(acetylamino)–4,1-phenylene]azo]]bis-, sodium salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 31, 2004 

Mr. BAKER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,5- 

Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 3,3′-[1,3- 

propanediylbis[imino(6-fluoro- 1,3,5-triazine-4,2- 

diyl)imino[2-(acetylamino)–4,1-phenylene]azo]]bis-, sodium salt. 

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

•HR 4086 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON 1,5- 

2 NAPHTHALENEDISULFONIC ACID, 3,3′-[1,3- 

3 PROPANEDIYLBIS[IMINO(6-FLUORO- 1,3,5-TRI4 AZINE-4,2-DIYL)IMINO[2-(ACETYLAMINO)–4,1- 

5 PHENYLENE]AZO]]BIS-, SODIUM SALT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.33.70 1,5-Naphthalenedisulfonic 

acid, 3,3′-[1,3- 

propanediylbis[imino(6- 

fluoro- 1,3,5-triazine-4,2- 

diyl)imino[2-(acetylamino)– 

4,1-phenylene]azo]]bis-, sodium salt (CAS No. 

149850–32–8) (provided for 

in subheading 3204.16.30) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

12 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

13 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
NVLAP LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-114-2019 PAGE: 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ISSUE DATE:

November 13, 2019

LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-114-2019

LAP: Ionizing Radiation 

Dosimetry

SUBJECT: Release of NIST Handbook 150-4, 2019 Edition

NIST Handbook 150-4, which represents the technical requirements for the accreditation of laboratories 

under the NVLAP Ionizing Radiation Dosimetry Laboratory Accreditation Program, has been revised. 

The new edition incorporates changes resulting from the release of ISO/IEC 17025:2017, General 

requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, and was revised with the 

participation of technical experts in the field of ionizing radiation dosimetry analysis.

The following are the primary changes that have been made with this revision of Handbook 150-4:

• The numbering has been updated to reflect that used by ISO/IEC 17025:2017, General 

requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.

• References to applicable standards and guidance documents have been updated.

• Sections 3.4.1.2(b) and 3.4.2.1(b) in Proficiency Testing, 7.5.2 in Technical Records, 8.8.5 in 

Internal Audits, and 8.9.6 in Management Reviews are new requirements.

• Wording changes for clarification have been made where needed.

This is only a summary of the major revisions. Laboratories are responsible for reviewing the entire 

document and implementing all requirements.

When the management system of a laboratory does not follow the numbering in ISO/IEC 17025:2017, the 

laboratory shall provide a mapping between the two numbering systems (crosswalk). Implementation of 

the crosswalk, when applicable, shall be for assessments occurring 60 days from the date of issuance of 

this lab bulletin.

The 2019 edition of NIST Handbook 150-4 supersedes and replaces the 2005 edition. It is available for 

downloading (PDF format) from the NVLAP website http://www.nist.gov/nvlap under Publications and 

Forms.

The NIST Handbook 150-4 Checklist has also been updated and posted on the NVLAP website under 

Accreditation Programs/Ionizing Radiation Dosimetry. 

Questions concerning the revised handbook or requirements for accreditation should be directed to Derek 

L. Ho, program manager, at 301-975-4023 or derek.ho@nist.gov.
10328.

#### COLLIER *v.*HOLLAND, administrator.

The recovery of the commission sued for as compensation for procuring a purchaser and bringing about the sale of land sold by the defendant was authorized by the evidence.

The alleged newly discovered evidence was merely cumulative and impeaching in its nature, and did not require a new trial.

Decided October 10, 1919.

Complaint; from Morgan superior court—Judge Park. January 1, 1919.

*Albert G. Foster,*for plaintiff in error.

*Williford & Lambert,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

In the order overruling the motion for a new trial the judge said: “In my opinion no error of law ivas committed by the court in the trial of said case, and under the following decisions, to wit: *Hardin*v. *Stansel,*13 *Ga. App.*22 [28 S. E. 681], *Graves*v. *Hunnicutt,*8 *Ga. App*99 [68 S. E. 558], *Doonan*v. *Ives,*73 *Ga.*295 (3), *Mousseau*v. *Dorsett,*80 *Ga.*566 [5 S. E. 780], *Hill*v. *Wheeler,*2 *Ga. App.*349 [58 S. E. 502], the evidence authorized the verdict rendered. As to the newly discovered evidence of Pleas. M. Todd as set out in the amended motion for new trial, it is only cumulative in its nature, and movant contended in his testimony that the facts set out in the affidavit of Todd were correct. It could only be regarded as evidence corroborating movant and impeaching in its character, and under section 6086 of the Civil Code (1910) and authorities in connection there*252with, does not authorize the granting of a new trial. Under the evidence in this case the jury was authorized to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff, J. H. Holland, was the procuring cause that brought about the sale, and under the principle that £a laborer is worthy of his hire,’ especially where movant at the time the sale was being closed said to the plaintiff £I will treat you right about it,’ I overrule the motion for new trial.”

So far as appears from the motion for a new trial, we agree with the trial judge that “no error of law was committed by the court in the trial of said case.” Not one of the several grounds of the motion shows any cause which requires the grant of a neiv trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.*
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 1, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-172

Lower Tribunal No. 13-24785

________________



### AIM Recovery Services, Inc.

,

Appellant,

vs.



### Quincy Williams

, Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Norma S. Lindsey

, Judge.

Stok Folk + Kon, Robert A. Stok, Shoham Segal and Jamey R. Campellone

, for appellant.

Wasson & Associates, C hartered and Annabel C. Majewski

, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

EMAS, J.Appellant, AIM Recovery Services, Inc., appeals a nonfinal order vacating a

default and default final judgment. We review the trial court’s order for a gross

abuse of discretion, Gables Club Marina, LLC v. Gables Condo. & Club Ass’n,

Inc.

, 948 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber

, 143

So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1962)), and affirm.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b) authorizes entry of a default by the

court, but where the party has filed or served any document in the action, 1 “that

party must be served with notice of the application for default.” In the instant case,

Williams alleged in his motion to vacate that the default and default final judgment

were void as having been rendered without notice to him or an opportunity to be

heard. 2

At an evidentiary hearing on Williams’s motion to vacate, the trial court

weighed the testimony, considered the other evidence presented, and concluded,

inter alia, that Williams did not receive notice of the application for default or

notice of the motion for default final judgment, and did not have an opportunity to

be heard. These determinations are supported by the record.

Because Williams established that he did not receive notice and was not

provided an opportunity to be heard, the default and default final judgment were

1 In response to the complaint, Williams filed a motion to dismiss.

2 At the commencement of the action, Williams was represented by counsel;

counsel subsequently withdrew and, at all times relevant to this appeal, Williams

was unrepresented.

2void and properly vacated. As we held in Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular,

LLC

, 957 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) “[a] violation of the due process

guarantee of notice and an opportunity to be heard renders a judgment void.”

“Notice is the first and most essential element of due process and failure to give

notice of a default, when required, makes a default void.” M.W. v. SPCP Group

V, LLC

, 163 So. 3d 518, 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). “This court has repeatedly held

that a judgment entered without notice to a party is void ab initio .” State, Dep’t of

Revenue ex rel. Prinzee v. Thurmond

, 721 So. 2d 827, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)

(and cases cited).

Affirmed.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001017362
<NAME> PEERLESS GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             455
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,150
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,456
<PP&E>                                           7,229
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,823
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,387
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,081
<SALES>                                         14,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,459
<CGS>                                            4,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,558
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,190
<INCOME-TAX>                                       847
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,343
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,343
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4393

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility 

of designating certain lands along the northern coast of Maui, Hawaii, 

as a unit of the National Park System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2004

Mr. CASE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Resources 

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability 

and feasibility of designating certain lands along the 

northern coast of Maui, Hawaii, as a unit of the National 

Park System.

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

3 SECTION 1. NORTH MAUI COASTAL STUDY. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘North Maui Coastal Preservation Act of 2004’’. 

6 (b) STUDY.—

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Inte8 rior shall complete a study to determine the suit-
2

•HR 4393 IH 

1 ability and feasibility of designating certain lands lo2 cated on the northern coast of Maui, Hawaii, as a 

3 National Seashore, National Historical Park, Na4 tional Recreation Area, National Monument, Na5 tional Preserve, or other unit of the National Park 

6 System. 

7 (2) STUDY AREA.—The study area shall include 

8 the following parcels: 

9 (A) Property 1, approximately 43 acres 

10 (TMK II 3–8–01, parcel 72) stretching from 

11 Kelaakai Place in Sprecklesville to the western 

12 boundary of H.P. Baldwin Beach Park Road in 

13 Paia, and includes natural sand dunes, coastal 

14 beaches, and wetlands. 

15 (B) Property 2, approximately 17 acres 

16 known as H.P. Baldwin Park comprises TMK 

17 II 2–5–05, parcel 47 (4.6 acres) and parcel 46 

18 (12.5 acres). 

19 (C) Property 3, approximately 4.5 acres of 

20 coastal lands stretching from the eastern border 

21 of H. P. Baldwin Park to the Maui Youth and 

22 Cultural Center known as TMK II 2–6–01, par23 cel 1 (3.517 acres) and parcel 4 (1.08 acres). 

24 (D) Property 4, approximately 32 acres 

25 known as TMK II 2–5–05; parcel 17. 
3

•HR 4393 IH 

1 (E) Property 5, approximately 5.7 acres 

2 known as Lime Kiln Beach (TMK II 2–5–05, 

3 parcel 14). 

4 (F) Property 6, approximately 26 acres 

5 known as Stable Road Beach (TMK II 3–8–01, 

6 parcel 3). 

7 (3) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAW.—Para8 graphs (2) and (3) of section 8(c) of Public Law 91–

9 383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)(2) and (3)); commonly 

10 known as the National Park System General Au11 thorities Act) shall apply to the study. 

12 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after funds 

13 are made available for this section, the Secretary of the 

14 Interior shall transmit to the Committee on Resources of 

15 the House of Representatives and the Committee on En16 ergy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report con17 taining the conclusions of the study required by subsection 

18 (b).

Æ
No. 87-6515.

#### Conley *v.*Estate of Conley.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Workshop Agenda

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5 

10:00 AM Opening Remarks 

10:10 AM Plenary 1: The Food Waste Situation in the U.S. 

- Jackie Suggitt, ReFED 

10:45 AM Session 1: Data, Reporting, and Modeling

- Kai Robertson, Food Loss & Waste Protocol 

- Brian Roe, Ohio State University 

- Ziynet Boz, University of Florida 

- Juliana Beecher, U.S. EPA 

11:45 AM Breakout Discussions 

12:30 PM BREAK (30 minutes) 

1:00 PM Session 2: Characterization and Contamination

- Eric Roy, University of Vermont

- Linda Lee, Purdue 

- Matthew Ball, U.S. Composting Council

- Sally Brown, University of Washington 

- Justin Sluiter, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

2:00 PM Breakout Discussions 

2:45 PM Closing Remarks 

3:00 PM Adjourn 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6 

10:00 AM Plenary 2: Sustainable Management of Food 

- Shannon Kenny, U.S. EPA 

10:45 AM Session 3: Reduction Strategies

- Andy Harig, Food Waste Reduction Alliance 

- Cheng Gong, University of Maryland 

- Lara Ramdin, Upcycled Food Inc. 

- Paige Donner, IoT Logistics, LLC 
11:45 AM Breakout Discussions 

12:30 PM BREAK (30 minutes) 

1:00 PM Session 4: Recovery Pathways

- Nora Goldstein, Biocycle 

- Beau Hoffman, DoE Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) 

- Christy Tyler, Rochester Institute of Technology 

- Anelia Milbrandt, NREL

2:00 PM Breakout Discussions 

2:45 PM Closing Remarks 

3:00 PM Adjourn 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7 

10:00 AM Plenary 3: Pacific Coast Food Waste Collaborative

- Pete Pearson, World Wildlife Fund 

10:45 AM Session 5: Food Rescue Networks

- Glenda Lewis and Priya Kadam, U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

- Melissa Hall, New York Pollution Prevention Institute 

- Lisa Pellegrino, Center for EcoTechnology 

- Chris Franke, Walmart 

11:45 AM Breakout Discussions 

12:30 PM BREAK (30 minutes) 

1:00 PM Session 6: Legal and Regulatory Barriers and Opportunities

- Josh Kelly, State of Vermont 

- Derek Thedell, Washington State Dept of Agriculture

- Madeline Keating, NRDC

- Heather Latino, Harvard Law School 

2:00 PM Breakout Discussions 

2:45 PM Closing Remarks 

3:00 PM Adjourn
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7681

MARK A. ANDERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JACK LEE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-00-511-7)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 8, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Leonard Taylor, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark A. Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Anderson v. Lee, No. CA-00-511-7 (W.D.

Va. Aug. 27, 2001). 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