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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7769

LEARIE A. DALY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CALVIN MCCORMICK, District Director,

Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-

2742-AMD)

Submitted: March 10, 2004 Decided: April 27, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Learie A. Daly, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Learie A. Daly, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

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

court. See Daly v. McCormick, No. CA-03-2742-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 6,

2003). 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2350 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 

Treasury, International Affairs Technical Assistance for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Treasury, International Affairs Technical 

Assistance for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, INTER5 NATIONAL AFFAIRS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Treasury, International Affairs 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2350 IH

1 Technical Assistance for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $30,000,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion

s hould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50328 A-98-CV-501-SS

MAURICE C. COOK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, of the States of Texas, Et Al, Defendants, JAMES WILSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Former Director of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas; DUDLEY THOMAS, In his Official Capacity as the Director of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

December 13, 1999 Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The court has considered this appeal in light of the briefs, arguments of counsel and pertinent portions of the record.
The district court did not err in concluding that Cook failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning a procedural due process violation.

AFFIRMED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,723,441
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    110,424
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         292,471
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       502,185
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  63,472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,691,993
<COMMON>                                       117,087
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      405,092
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            959,221
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,552,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           76,532
<PREFERRED>                                     17,928
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         2,380,678
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             150,951
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   58,741
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,454,963
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                5,691,993
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      596,391
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            36,999
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     410,165
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     447,164
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        149,227
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (7,371)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 141,856
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        88,312
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,544
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,992
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   51,552
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        37,765
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       78,968
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          98,500
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54


</TABLE>
#### State v. Denny

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 822

No. 572P06

1. AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA05-1419)

2. AG’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. AG’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Allowed 11/06/06

2. Allowed 12/14/06

3. Allowed 12/14/06
ex10-3.htm


Exhibit 10.3






SECOND ADDENDUM


TO


SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT / DEBT SETTLEMENT


 


THIS ADDENDUM is made the 29th of April, 2015.


 


BETWEEN:


 


DSG TAG SYSTEMS INC. (the 'Company")


 


AND:


 


WESTERGAARD HOLDINGS LTD. (the "Subscriber")


 


WHEREAS the Parties entered in to a Subscription and Debt Settlement Agreement dated September 26, 2014 as amended by addendum dated October 7, 2014 (together the "Agreement");


 


AND WHEREAS the Parties have agreed to amend the Agreement in the .manner outlined herein.


 


NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of the sum of one Dollar ($1.00) now paid by each party hereto to the other and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1. All capitalized words and phrases used herein, unless otherwise defined, have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.


 


2. Section 11 of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following as a second sentence thereto:


 


"The RTO shall be closed by June 1, 2015."


 


3. The Subscriber hereby waives its rights under section 3.7 of the Agreement.


 


4. A new section 3.8 is added, as follows:


 


"3.8   Until all of the Series A Shares have been redeemed in accordance with the above provisions, DSG agrees that it will not incur, pay or agree to incur or pay any expenses, disbursements or other amounts (including, without limitation, management, employee or consultant fees or bonuses, or dividends) other than in the ordinary course of its business, without the prior written consent of the Subscriber."


 


5. In all other regards, the Agreement remains unamended and in full force and effect.


 


The Company will reimburse the Subscriber for any and all legal costs attributed to the documentation of this agreement immediately upon receipt of an invoice from the Subscriber.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this Addendum as of the date first above written.



 



	
DSG TAG SYSTEMS INC

	
WESTERGAARD HOLDINGS INC


	
by its authorized signatory:

	
by its authorized signatory:


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	
/s/ Robert Silzer               

	
/s/ Keith Westergaard               


	
President and Chief Executive Officer

	
President
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 on Form 10-K of Deer Consumer Products,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zongshu
Nie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §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 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d));
and





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





By:
              /s/ Zongshu NieDate:
      June 18, 2010
              
              Zongshu
      Nie
                Chief
      Financial Officer





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50738

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEOPOLDO LUJAN-CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-118-ALL-DB

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Leopoldo LujanChavez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-18-00073-CR

________________

BILLY WAYNE GILLILAND, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR33359

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Billy Wayne Gilliland guilty as an habitual offender

of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and assessed punishment at confinement 

for life. Gilliland appealed his conviction. 

Gilliland’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 
2

1978). On June 25, 2018, we granted an extension of time for Gilliland to file a pro 

se brief. We received no response from Gilliland.

We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion 

that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

______________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on October 11, 2018

Opinion Delivered October 24, 2018

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

 1

Gilliland may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 42]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30760]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging: Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Nathan Shock Center.
    Date: January 26, 2015.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Bita Nakhai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Branch 
National Institute on Aging Gateway Bldg. 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7701, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a343b31323b33381a34333b74343332743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="711f101a19101813311f18105f1f18195f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 29, 2014.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-30760 Filed 12-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer

         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


     Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,the undersigned, Javad
K. Hassan, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AM Communications, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:

     The Company's Form 10-QSB Quarterly Report for the period ended June 29,
     2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated:  August 19, 2002                   /s/ Javad K. Hassan
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Javad K. Hassan,
                                          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure.

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of public hearing.

# SUMMARY:

The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has been canceled: Criminal Rules Hearing, January 30, 2015, in Nashville, Tennessee. Announcements for this meeting were previously published in 79 FR 48250 and 79 FR 72702.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan C. Rose, Secretary and Chief Rules Officer, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

Dated: January 5, 2015.

Jonathan C. Rose,

Secretary and Chief Rules Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-00103 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
EXHIBIT
32.1





SECTION
906 SARBANES OXLEY CERTIFICATION




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SS.1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of New Century Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Duquette, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.





May 20, 2009
                /s/
      David DuquetteName:  David
      DuquetteTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer andChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to Company and will be retained by Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT RICHARD TOWNES, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 96-2 RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-42) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by published per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Donald Robert Lee, VIRGINIA CAPITAL REPRESENTATION RESOURCE CENTER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert Quentin Harris, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM:Richard Townes is sentenced to death and is scheduled to be executed tonight at 9:00 p.m. for his 1986 murder of Virginia Goebel. Yesterday, January 22, 1996, Townes filed this appeal from the order of the district court dated January 17, 1996, denying his petition fora writ of habeas corpus, challenging a separate 1976 robbery conviction which was presented to the jury at his murder trial as evidence of his future dangerousness. In essence, Townes' challenge to the1976 robbery conviction amounts to a challenge to evidence presented during his murder trial, which we reviewed recently in Townes v. Murray , 68 F.3d 840 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___ (Jan. 23, 1996). The 1976 robbery conviction which Townes challenges in this case was entered pursuant to a guilty plea, and no direct appeal was taken. That conviction, however, has been the subject of numerous collateralchallenges, catalogued in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to the district court in this case, dated February 22, 1993. Even though Townes' claims are barred by multiple defaults in both state and federal court, the district court nevertheless reviewed their merits and rejected all of them.We have carefully reviewed all of the matters presented and conclude that, for the reasons given by the district court in its January 17, 1996 opinion, Townes v. Angelone , Civil Action No. 96-42-2 (E.D.Va. Jan. 17, 1996), the points raised on appeal have no merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED 2
#### Antonio Flores FLORES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72588.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Antonio Flores Flores, Pomona, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Melissa Leibman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of a motion to reopen.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is construed as a motion for summary disposition. So construed, the motion is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The regulations provide that “a party may file only one motion to reopen,” and that the motion “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen, filed more than seven months after final administrative decision was rendered. *See Iturribarria v.*
      *964
      *INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.