alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Grayson ATKINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK; Carla O’Konek; Michael Easley, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-6265.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 25, 2001.

*177John Grayson Atkinson, pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John Grayson Atkinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Atkinson’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Atkinson v. Beck,*No. CA-00-60-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 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.*
EXHIBIT 32

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  First   Litchfield   Financial
Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  we, Joseph J. Greco,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  and Carroll A. Pereira,  Principal  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:

      (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/ Joseph J. Greco                                /s/ Carroll A. Pereira
-------------------                                ----------------------
Joseph J. Greco                                    Carroll A. Pereira
President and Chief Executive Officer              Principal Financial Officer
August 14, 2006                                    August 14, 2006

The foregoing  certificate  is furnished  solely for purposes of complying  with
Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and  for  no  other  purpose
whatsoever.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any
of the Company's  previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  that might incorporate the
Company's  future  filings,  including  this Report on Form 10-Q, in whole or in
part,  this  Certificate  shall not be  incorporated  by reference into any such
filings.


                                       7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GABRIEL V. FRITZ

, 1

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below

, Appellee. §

§ No. 125 , 2017

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 1502012186 (K)

§

§

§

§

Submitted: July 3, 2017

Decided: July 13 , 2017

ORDER

This 13th day of July 201 7 , it appears to the Court that , on June 7 , 2017 , the

Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why this

appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file an opening b rief and appendix

in this matter by May 22, 2017 and his failure to file a completed motion to proceed

in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee

. The appellant failed to claim the notice to

show cause sent by certified mail . The appellant also failed to respond to the notice

to show cause sent by first class mail. The appellant has not responded to the notice

to show ca use within the required ten

- day period and therefore dismissal of this

appeal is deemed to be unopp o sed.

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule s 3(b)

and 29 (b) , that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 199 

To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of military or security assistance 

to Ukraine until operational control of the United States-Mexico border 

is achieved, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. ROSENDALE (for himself and Mrs. MILLER of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and 

in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of military or security assistance to Ukraine until operational control of 

the United States-Mexico border is achieved, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secure America’s Bor5 ders First Act’’. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 199 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds described in 

3 subsection (b) may be obligated or expended until the date 

4 on which— 

5 (1) a border wall system along the United 

6 States-Mexico border is completed; and 

7 (2) operational control, as such term is defined 

8 in section 2 of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 

9 U.S.C. 1701 note), of such border is achieved. 

10 (b) FUNDS DESCRIBED.—The funds described in this 

11 subsection are the following, with respect to programs, 

12 projects, or activities in Ukraine: 

13 (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated or 

14 otherwise made available to the Department of De15 fense for any fiscal year. 

16 (2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated or 

17 otherwise made available for security assistance or 

18 security cooperation for any fiscal year. 

19 (c) BORDER WALL SYSTEM.—For purposes of this 

20 Act, a border wall system shall include— 

21 (1) 30-foot high internally hardened steel22 bollard physical barrier; 

23 (2) all-weather access and patrol roads; 

24 (3) perimeter lighting; and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 199 IH

1 (4) enforcement cameras, sensors, and anti-tun2 nel detection technology. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2

 

 

Confidential treatment has been requested for portions of this exhibit. The copy filed herewith omits information subject to the confidentiality request. Omissions are designated as [*****]. A complete version of this exhibit has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

Amendment to Google AdWords PSP Addendum

 

 

This Amendment (“Amendment”), effective as of June 1, 2015 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), is between ReachLocal, Inc. (“Reach Local US”), ReachLocal Europe B.V. (“ReachLocal Europe”) and the ReachLocal Affiliates on behalf of themselves and their Affiliates (each a “PSP” or “Customer” and, collectively, “ReachLocal PSP”) and Google Inc, and the Google Affiliates (together, “Google”) and is an addendum to the Google AdWords PSP Addendum between the parties with an effective date of July 1, 2014 and April 1, 2015 (collectively “Addendum”), Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment have the meanings given to those terms in the Addendum. The parties agree as follows:

 

	 	
1.
	
[*****]



 

 

	 	
2.
	
The parties may execute this Amendment in counterparts, including facsimile, PDF, or other electronic copies, which taken together will constitute one instrument.



 

 

 

 


 

 Confidential material redacted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 




 


 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment by persons duly authorized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

GOOGLE INC.

 

By: /s/ Omid Kordestani              

 

Name: Omid Kordestani

 

Title: Authorized Signatory

 

Date: June 9, 2015

 

 

 

PREMIER SMB PARTNER: REACHLOCAL, INC.

 

By: /s/ Ross G. Landsbaum         

 

Name: Ross G. Landsbaum

 

Title: CFO

 

Date: June 5, 2015

 

PREMIER SMB PARTNER: ReachLocal Europe B.V.

 

By: /s/ Craig Harris                       

 

Name: Craig Harris

 

Title: Managing Director

 

Date: June 5, 2015

 

 

 

2
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00072-CR

CHARLES TREVAUGHN TIGG BLAKEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 185th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 1410435)

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the 

court below on June 27, 2014. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the 

opinion of this Court that it has no jurisdiction over the appeal. It is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered August 18, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices

Bland and Huddle.
EVANS, ROWE & HOLBROOK

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Union Square, Suite 900

10101 Reunion Place

San Antonio, TX 78216

(210) 340-6555 Elsa Marie Garza, Legal Assistant

Fax (210) 340-6664 Telephone: (210) 340-6555

www.evansrowe.com egarza@evans-rowe.com

February 16, 2015

Fourth Court of Appeals

Cadena Reeves Justice Center

San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037

RE: Cause No. 04-15-00029-CV; In the Fourth Court of Appeals at San Antonio, Texas, 

Diagnostic Research Group, and John R. Holcomb, M.D., Appellants v. Sushma Vora 

Appellee 

Dear Ladies & Gentlemen:

With regard to the above-referenced matter, enclosed for filing please find the following:

1. BRIEF OF APPELLANTS, DIAGNOSTICS RESEARCH GROUP, 

L.L.C. AND JOHN R. HOLCOMB, M.D.

Please file among the papers of the Court, date stamp the copy, and return the copy to our 

office via the e-service. By copy of this letter, counsel of record will be served as reflected below.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or need additional 

information, please do not hesitate to call. 

Respectfully yours,

Elsa Marie Garza

Elsa Marie Garza, Legal Assistant to

Matthew M. Edwards

EMG

Enclosures

cc: Christopher J. Deeves Via e-service and fax

Beth Janicek Via e-service and fax

Harvey Ferguson, Jr./Benjamin C. Nichols Via e-service and fax

Joseph P. Thomas/Jeffrey D. Geoppinger Via e-service and fax

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 02/16/2015 12:34:31 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
10586.

#### Westchester Fire Insurance Co. *v.*Bell, adm’r.

Decided March 2, 1921.

Action on insurance policy; from Fulton superior court — Judge Bell. April 21, 1919.

*King & Spalding, Daniel McDougald,*for plaintiff in error.

*McDlreath & Scott,*contra.

Luke, J.

Tlie judgment originally rendered by this court in this case (24 *Ga. App.*528), having been reversed by the Supreme Court (151 *Ga.*187, 106 S. E. 186), the former judgment of this court is vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is

*Reversed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
Predicting Performance in LargeScale Identification Systems by 

Score Resampling 

Sergey Tulyakov, Venu Govindaraju 

Center for Unified Biometrics and Sensors, 

University at Buffalo 
Problem Statement 

Test system 

• Predicting performance in closed set identification systems 

• NIST BSSR1 score set used in experiments 

Predicted system 

Genuine Scores Impostor Scores 

Number of users: 

Need to estimate correct identification rate: i-th test identification trial 
• Score Mixing Effect 

Mix scores from different test 

Action: identification trials during 

prediction 

(e.g. to estimate impostor score 

density) 

Effect: • assumption of iid genuine and impostor score from different trials (usually not true) 

• underestimation of CIR 

• Binomial Approximation Effect

Analysis of previous approaches 

Action: try to approximate

cumulative distribution function density of 

 of impostor scores genuine scores 

Effect: 

• small errors in estimating lead to large errors in 

• overestimation of CIR 
Proposed approach 

• Score Resampling 

- basic simulation of larger identification system workflow 

- genuine and impostor scores are chosen from available test scores 

• No binomial approximation effect 

• Able to control score mixing effect 

-

than for binomial approximations 

- mix scores only from similar test 

identification trials 

- determine similarity of identification 

 trials by properly chosen statistics 

-nth order statistics seems to be appropriate 

for most matchers 

 significantly less score mixing is needed 
Summary 

• Simple approach for predicting identification system performance 

• Lesser requirements on test data than for binomial approximation 

based methods 

• Theoretically justified (larger version of the paper) 

• Precise (depending on properly chosen statistics for score mixing) 

• Easily extended for predicting performance in open set identification 

systems
##### 



Doral Financial Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 Nine month period endedSeptember 30, 2005Including Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    88,026Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    486,792Total Earnings
    
    $
    574,818Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    483,209Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized
expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    1,363An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    2,220Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    486,792Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.18Excluding Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    88,026Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    411,831Total Earnings
    
    $
    499,857Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    408,248Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized
expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    1,363An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    2,220Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    411,831Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.21
March 4, 1988

No. 87-660.

#### Peters et al. *v.*City of Shreveport.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

I, Mark R. Rosenzweig, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BTU International,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: November 13, 2002

                           /s/ MARK R. ROSENZWEIG
                 -----------------------------------------------
                               Mark R. Rosenzweig
                 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


            INTELECT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three months ended                 Nine months ended
                                                               September 30                       September 30
                                                    ------------------------------       -----------------------------
                                                        1997               1996             1997               1996
                                                    ------------       -----------       -----------       -----------

<S>                                                   <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>       
Primary and Fully Diluted Loss Per Share

Shares in issue beginning of period                   21,149,760        12,885,537        15,027,728        11,385,117
Shares issued (weighted average)                         754,741           226,494         4,427,550         1,112,683
                                                    ------------       -----------       -----------       -----------
Weighted average shares in issue end of period        21,904,501        13,112,031         9,455,278        12,497,800

Dilutive common stock equivalents:
     Stock options using treasury stock method
       (weighted average)                                     --           434,434                --         1,001,039
                                                    ============       ===========       ===========       ===========
Total weighted average common shares and
     common stock equivalents                         21,904,501        13,546,465        19,455,278        13,498,839
                                                    ============       ===========       ===========       ===========

Loss for period (thousands of Dollars)              $     (4,478)           (8,503)          (17,529)          (15,363)
                                                    ============       ===========       ===========       ===========

Loss per share                                      $      (0.20)            (0.63)            (0.90)            (1.14)
                                                    ============       ===========       ===========       ===========
</TABLE>
#### Carl KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,* Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-35512.

D.C. No. CV-99-00971-REJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 11, 2001.**

Decided May 23, 2001.

Before GOODWIN, GREENBERG*** and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Larry G. Massanari, is substituted for his predecessor, as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

***

 The Honorable Morton I. Greenberg, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ****

This court reviews *de novo*a district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits. *Lewis v.**524*Apfel,*236 F.3d 503, 509 (9th Cir.2001). We must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. *Holohan v. Massanari,*246 F.3d 1195, 1201-02 (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).

King contends the ALJ erred by failing to order all relevant medical records and fully develop the record. He also argues that the ALJ erred by failing to find that the combination of his impairments was severe. Finally, King states the ALJ erred by finding him capable of performing medium work.

The record was adequately developed and the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

AFFIRMED.

****

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1953

In Re: THOMAS JOSEPH DALTON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:03-cr-00739-DCN-1)

Submitted: February 24, 2009 Decided: March 11, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Joseph Dalton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Joseph Dalton petitions for a writ of mandamus, asserting excessive delay and seeking an order directing the district court to rule on his case following remand from this court for resentencing. As the district court has appointed new

counsel for Dalton and has directed the U.S. Marshal to transport Dalton to the court for resentencing, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

PETITION DENIED