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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6666

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEMUEL KINNEY,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-94-57-A, CA-95-1697-AM)

Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: October 22, 1996

Before HAMILTON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lemuel Kinney, Appellant Pro Se. Natalia Combs Greene, William T.

Henderson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lemuel Kinney appeals from the district court's order dismissing his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), as amended by

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 114. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Kinney, Nos. CR-94-57-A; CA-95-1697-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 1996).

Kinney's motion to supplement the record on appeal is denied. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         356,660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,324,233
<ALLOWANCES>                                   194,741
<INVENTORY>                                  1,062,049
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,740,295
<PP&E>                                       2,246,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                 161,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,291,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,199,899
<BONDS>                                      3,577,114
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,586
<OTHER-SE>                                   (486,690)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,291,909
<SALES>                                     14,618,684
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,618,684
<CGS>                                       12,068,261
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,068,261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,915,350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                56,331
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             397,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,731,501)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,731,501)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,731,501)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
NIST Privacy Framework

A Tool for Improving Privacy through Enterprise Risk Management

FACT SHEET | January 2020

CONTACT | privacyframework@nist.gov

MAILING LIST | subscribe

LEARN MORE | www.nist.gov/privacyframework

s4

Why a Privacy Framework?

The challenge

It is challenging to design, operate, 

and use technologies in ways that 

recognize diverse privacy needs in 

increasingly connected and complex 

environments. Deriving benefits from 

data while simultaneously managing 

risks to individuals’ privacy is not 

well-suited to one-size-fits-all

solutions. 

Addressing the privacy challenge

The National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) published

the voluntary Privacy Framework

to help organizations:

• Build customers’ trust by 

supporting ethical decision-making 

in product and service design or 

deployment that optimizes 

beneficial uses of data while 

minimizing adverse 

consequences for individuals’ 

privacy and society as a whole; 

• Fulfill current compliance 

obligations, as well as futureproofing products and services to 

meet these obligations in a 

changing technological and policy 

environment; and

• Facilitate communication about 

privacy practices with customers, 

assessors, regulators, and the 

public.

Developing the Privacy Framework

NIST collaborated with public- and 

private-sector stakeholders through a 

transparent, public, consensus-based 

process to produce this voluntary 

tool. Visit the Development Archive 

on the Privacy Framework website 

for more information.

What is the Privacy Framework?

The Privacy Framework is a voluntary tool intended to help 

organizations identify and manage privacy risk so that they 

can build innovative products and services while protecting 

individuals’ privacy. Like the Framework for Improving 

Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, the Privacy Framework 

is composed of three parts: Core, Profiles, and 

Implementation Tiers. Each reinforces privacy risk 

management by connecting business and mission drivers, 

organizational roles and responsibilities, and privacy 

protection activities.

Using the Framework

The Privacy Framework provides a flexible, risk- and 

outcome-based approach that enables any organization to 

use it. Visit the Privacy Framework website for more 

information about adoption. Explore the Resource 

Repository for crosswalks with laws, regulations, and 

standards, as well as tools, guidance, and common Profiles

to support implementation. 

Next Steps

With the release of Version 1.0, NIST will focus on use of 

the Framework and collaboration to address challenges 

outlined in the Privacy Framework Roadmap. The 

Framework is a living document, and NIST will continue to 

serve as convener and coordinator for any updates that 

may be needed in the future.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4489 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to mandate a life sentence for 

repeat sex offenders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 2, 2004 

Mr. GRAVES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to mandate a life 

sentence for repeat sex offenders. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR REPEAT SEX 

4 OFFENDERS. 

5 Subsection (a) of section 2247 of title 18, United 

6 States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(a) MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE.—The term of 

8 imprisonment for a violation of this chapter after a prior 

9 sex offense conviction shall be life.’’. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,298
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,252
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,590
<PP&E>                                          46,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                (30,479)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,027
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           529
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,666
<SALES>                                          7,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,725
<CGS>                                            5,204
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,778
<INCOME-TAX>                                       457
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,321
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
OFFICE OF THE A-TTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

ioatr l tea t 88 thaw 

thln& aa 88% e&ab~irhed 

to 0i %x06 a8 prl808 

8 1088 theYefer* ti3 kmw wb4msr 

0 p*y the tax since* w8 bme Rot 

e cax8- we me48 ~Mmm-- aa4 ff em 

to pay the tnx, ea what fkgure 

shoal& we barn the tex. 
In Seation la of Artiole 6, &use Bl&$ No. 0, 

?Orty-8OVanth Le~l8ftltW8, 8 tsr Oi OM per OAnt Of the 

oonsideration paid or to be paid 18 levied upon retail 

sales 0r motor vehicles sold in this S&ate, and fn SeetiOB 2 Of 8tiid hrtiole 6 there is 18vied a use tax upen 

every motor rohlole purahased at retall sale OUt8ide olt 

thla State and brought Into thi8 State for u8e upon the 

highwep8 by a Ye8ident oftbfe 8tata or by firm8 or oorporatioao dornia5JaM or doing business in thier State in 

clfl arnent equ8.1 to one p8r sent oi th* totnl consideratfcm paid or to be paid for uald rehfcle UC said ratrtl 

sale. . 

I’OU mQUO8t OUr OpiniOa ai bQ whethsr the oar8 

mentions4 in WY. Ibrine's btter may bs regietered for 

U8@l by Chevrolet YQtOl- DiV181OQ 88 008lQ8Ry Car8 Without 

the pBlyasnt of any tax unber raid Article 8. 

Ii the rmt0 thus 8ubmit+ied to you are oorreat 

then no tax Is due ant! these tehloles would be entitle4 

to be lW@Stel%d without 8 8bOWiw that U&y 8UO?l t8k haa 

beon mid, ah08 Said Artiole.6 levied no tax emept in 

the strnt of a rale. IImfevef, lf by chance the oorporation of whioh Chevrolet Wtor ~lrision Is a division puroha8ed tbess oar8 rr0i8 8406 oth8r pereon, ooa~any or earporstion e tax Of one per OMt Or t&e tOta GQn8id8x8tf,on 

paid wouI6 be due and the OtkT8 wuld not be entitled to 

registretZon without tta payout. 

Yours very truly 

Y 2, 1941 A!L’l’ORIBW GJEHERAL OF' TXXAS 

FIRST ?, SS i?i!MNT aBy @tL.4eLC 

ATTORNEY .EEREML 

1 Glenn 5.. bti8 

A88i8tMt 

GRLztt;
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus LEONEL ROMEO CAZACO, a/k/a Jimmy Fingers, a/k/a Frank Nisbett, a/k/a James Romeo Nelson, a/k/a Phil, a/k/a Scott, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-96-66) Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonel Romeo Cazaco, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Leonel Romeo Cazaco seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Because Cazaco’s motion did not assert a defect in the collateral review process itself, but rather reargued the merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law, the district court concluded that it did not constitute a true Rule 60(b) motion under our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995 (2003). To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas action, Cazaco must establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. See Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368 (4th Cir. 2004). 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. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 Cazaco has not made the requisite showing.- 3 - Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent that Cazaco’s notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See Winestock , 340 F.3d at 208. 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
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 of Magnitude Information Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Form
10-QSB"), I, Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
as of the date hereof, 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, the Company's Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: March 3, 2006                                 By: /s/ Joerg H. Klaube
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Joerg H. Klaube
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73064-73065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28764]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-515-000]

Great Bay Energy VII, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Great Bay Energy VII, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is December 22, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and

[[Page 73065]]

interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email [email protected]. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28764 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 5, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

                    1.                     *Centra Ventures, Inc.,*                     Foley, Minnesota; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Community Pride Bank Corporation, Ham Lake, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Community Pride Bank, Isanti, Minnesota.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 8, 2014.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2014-29041 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
MP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0621

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JAY DONALD WITKOWSKI,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including December 1, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

October 29 2020

10/29/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0621
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1291

DAVERETTA A. HAYES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MASS TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00-

3790-AMD)

Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daveretta A. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Jessie Lyons Crawford, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Daveretta A. Hayes appeals the district court’s order and

order on reconsideration granting summary judgment to the Appellee

in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Hayes v. Mass Transit Admin., No. CA-00-3790-AMD (D. Md.

Jan. 22 & Feb. 6, 2002). 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