alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Devon Dale BECKFORD, a/k/a Chubbs, a/k/a Trubbey, a/k/a Bull, a/k/a Big Bull, a/k/a Fats, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6158.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2006.

Decided: June 29, 2006.

Devon Dale Beckford, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

*385PER CURIAM:

Devon Dale Beckford seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Beckford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Beckford’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Beckford’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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
32.1





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 QuantRx Biomedical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
Witoshkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:





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/ Walter WitoshkinWalter
      WitoshkinChairman
      & CEO





Date:    May
15, 2009





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.
#### In the Matter of Timothy Quinn, Appellant, v Raymond Kelly, Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 18, 2013;

decided June 6, 2013

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*19 NY3d 813 (2012)].

Judges Rivera and Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
RALPH LEO DAIGLE,

Petitioner,

 v.

DALE R. GRIBLER,

Respondent.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 10-1266 (HHK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on initial consideration of petitioner’s pro se Petition for

Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus. The petition will be denied.

Petitioner alleges that, “[o]n or about May 19, 2010, Larry William Wilcox[’s] liberties

commenced to be restrained and is on going to this day[] by RESPONDENT, who is or

represents a ‘CORPORATION for Profit”, holding a natural man . . . against His will, over His

objection, and without His consent[.]” Pet. ¶ 2 (capitalization in original). Petitioner demands

Mr. Wilcox’s immediate release from custody. See id. at 4.

“Three inter-related judicial doctrines – standing, mootness, and ripeness, ensure that

federal courts assert jurisdiction only over ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Worth v. Jackson, 451

F.3d 854, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2006). A party has standing if his claims “spring from an ‘injury in

fact’ – an invasion of a legally protected interest that is ‘concrete and particularized,’ ‘actual or

imminent’ and ‘fairly traceable’ to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be redressed

by a favorable decision in the federal court.” Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998

1
(D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)). “[T]he injury

alleged cannot be conjectural or hypothetical, remote, speculative, or abstract.” Nat’l Treasury

Employees Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423, 1427 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted). Here, petitioner articulates no legally protected interest of his own;

rather, he purports to bring this action on Mr. Wilcox’s behalf. Although he may represent

himself as a pro se litigant, petitioner is a lay person who is not qualified to appear in this Court

on behalf of another person. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d

831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Standing may be denied where, as here, this pro se litigant seeks to

assert the rights of a third party. See Navegar, Inc., 103 F.3d at 998.

Even if petitioner had standing to bring this action, this Court cannot entertain a

challenge to the legality of Mr. Wilcox’s custody. Habeas actions are subject to jurisdictional

and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The

proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the warden. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,

434-35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v.

Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)), who is identified as Sheriff Dale Gribler of

Paw Paw, Michigan. “[A] district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present

physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.” Stokes v.

U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

HENRY H. KENNEDY, JR.

United States District Judge

DATE: August 21, 2010

2
Exhibit 31(i)

CERTIFICATIONS

** 
I, Gary J. Taylor, certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of System Energy Resources, Inc.;  
2.
Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;  
4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:   
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;   
b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   
c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   
d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  
5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

		/s/ Gary J. Taylor		

**
#### Park City Estates Tenants Corp., Appellant, v Gulf Insurance Company, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 127]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered November 30, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover on an all-risk commercial property and general liability insurance policy issued to plaintiff, the “Ordinance or Law” endorsement in the insurance policy *485specifically excluded coverage for losses related to “integrity testing” on the building’s plumbing and gas systems. After a gas pipe ruptured in the apartment of a tenant in plaintiff’s building, integrity testing of the system was performed, in accordance with Building Code (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 27-922. When the gas pipes and risers failed to withstand the pressure from this testing, the system required more than $600,000 worth of repairs. This loss was a “cost associated with the enforcement of an[ ] ordinance or law which require[d] [the] Insured or others to test plumbing, gas or other building systems for integrity,” and was thus specifically excluded from coverage under the policy *(see e.g. 61 Jane St. Tenants Corp. v Great Am. Ins. Co.,*2001 WL 40774, *3, 2001 US Dist LEXIS 265, *9-10 [SD NY 2001]).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the issue of whether the loss is covered under defendant’s “wear and tear” exclusion as a matter of law. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
#### The UNIVERSAL CHURCH, petitioner, v. Robert L. GELTZER, Trustee of the Estate of Darnelle Boisrond.

No. 06-583.

Jan. 8, 2007.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
#### Nella Manko, Appellant, v Bernard H. Broome et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 8, 2013;

decided May 7, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30873

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jawan Fortia, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:14-CR-131-4

______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jawan Fortia was convicted of numerous crimes related to his 

participation in a New Orleans street gang. On appeal, we vacated one 

conviction, affirmed the others, vacated the sentence on his drug-traffickingconspiracy conviction, and remanded for resentencing. See United States v. 

McClaren, 13 F.4th 386, 418–19 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 24, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30873 Document: 51-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2024
No. 23-30873

2

resentenced Fortia and reentered judgment. He now appeals that judgment

but rightly concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by the law-of-the-case 

doctrine. See United States v. Agofsky, 516 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2008).

Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., 

Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Fortia’s unopposed motion 

for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment

is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-30873 Document: 51-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2024
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

IN RE: THE NAME CHANGE OF RAKIM SALAM ALI

No. 4D2023

- 1673

[ January 3, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Cheryl A. Caracuzzo , Judge ; L.T. Case No.

502023DR000620

.

Rakim Salam Ali, Palm Beach Gardens, pro se.

No appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

The trial court denied Appellant’s petition for a name change based

upon a determination that Appellant verbally “requested” that the court

deny his petition. As the court did not reach the merits of Appellant’s

effort to have his former name restored (the denial of the petition upon

Appellant’s request was akin to a voluntary dismissal), Appellant is not

estopped from filing a new pet ition for a name change, per section 68.07,

Florida Statutes.

Affirmed

.

M AY

, D AMOORGIAN and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Year Ended December 31,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007Basic earnings per shareNet earnings
    
    $
    77.7
    
    
    $
    81.0
    
    
    $
    145.3Net earnings allocated to non-vested share awards
    
    
    (0.4
    )
    
    
    (0.6
    )
    
    
    (1.6
    )Net earnings attributable to common shares
    
    $
    77.3
    
    
    $
    80.4
    
    
    $
    143.7Basic weighted average number of common shares
outstanding
    
    
    56.8
    
    
    
    56.4
    
    
    
    56.1Basic earnings per share
    
    $
    1.36
    
    
    $
    1.42
    
    
    $
    2.56Diluted earnings per shareNet earnings
    
    $
    77.7
    
    
    $
    81.0
    
    
    $
    145.3Net earnings allocated to non-vested share awards
    
    
    (0.4
    )
    
    
    (0.6
    )
    
    
    (1.6
    )Net earnings attributable to common shares
    
    $
    77.3
    
    
    $
    80.4
    
    
    $
    143.7Basic weighted average number of common shares
outstanding
    
    
    56.8
    
    
    
    56.4
    
    
    
    56.1Weighted average number of common shares
issuable under stock option or unvested stock
grants
    
    
    0.2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Diluted weighted average number of common shares
outstanding
    
    
    57.0
    
    
    
    56.4
    
    
    
    56.1Diluted earnings per share
    
    $
    1.36
    
    
    $
    1.42
    
    
    $
    2.56
Exhibit
10.7


 


AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) is made and effective on the date hereof to that Employment Agreement dated as of December
23, 2021, (the “Employment Agreement”), between Creek Road Miners, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and Alan Urban (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS,
Executive has been employed by the Company pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement ;and ,


 


WHEREAS
the parties desire to now amend the Employment Agreement,


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual promises contained herein and of other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree to further amend the Employment Agreement
and to supersede the provisions of the Employment Agreement as follows:


 


1.
Section 4 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows: (i) a new Paragraph (a) is inserted, (with the other currently existing
paragraphs now becoming sequentially numbered paragraphs (b), (c), (d), etc. The new Paragraph (a) shall read as follows:


 


Upon
an event of Change of Control this agreement shall immediately terminate as of the date of the event of Change of Control and this agreement
shall be of no further force or effect. Aside from the payment to Executive of any accrued vacation time, which shall be payable in Preferred
Class A Stock issued by the Company, there shall be no further obligations including but not limited to any further financial obligations
of any nature owed or payable to Executive. Executive hereby acknowledges that except as stated herein, the Company owes no obligations
of any nature to him and hereby waives and relinquishes any and all rights or entitlements of any nature whatsoever that may be owed
to him by the Company except as expressly stated in this Amendment.


 


“Change
of Control” shall have the same meaning as defined in the Employment Agreement


 


Except
as expressly provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




    	 



    	 



    

 





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree as follows:


 


	 	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 
	July
    28, 2022	 	/s/
    Alan Urban
	 	 	Alan
    Urban
	 	 	 
	 	 	Creek
    Road Miners, Inc.
	 	 	 
	July
    28, 2022	By:	/s/
    Paul Kessler
	 	Name:	Paul
    Kessler, Chairman
96-2199.

#### Alsip v. Klosterman Baking Co.

Hamilton App. No. C-950721. Reported at 77 Ohio St.3d 1525, 674 N.E.2d 376. On motion for reconsideration by Klosterman Baking Company, Inc., and on motion for reconsideration by Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services. Motions denied.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13669]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9988-000]


Augusta Canal Authority; Notice of Authorization for Continued 
Project Operation

June 4, 2009.

    On May 30, 2007, Augusta Canal Authority, licensee for the King 
Mill Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License 
pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's 
regulations thereunder. The King Mill Hydroelectric Project is located 
on the Augusta Canal, adjacent to the Savannah River, in Richmond 
County, Augusta, GA.
    The license for Project No. 9988 was issued for a period ending May 
31, 2009. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires 
the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from 
year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the 
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other 
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived 
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth 
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an 
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to 
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the 
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project 
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be 
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations 
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or 
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 9988 is issued to 
the Augusta Canal Authority for a period effective June 1, 2009 through 
May 31, 2010, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or 
other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of 
a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before 
May 31, 2010, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), 
an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed 
automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless 
the Commission orders otherwise. If the project is not subject to 
section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the Augusta Canal 
Authority is authorized to continue operation of the King Mill 
Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its 
application for a subsequent license.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13669 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

                             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 Atlas Mining Company on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William T. Jacobson, Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      1. The Report 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ William T. Jacobson                                       March 28, 2006
------------------------------
William T. Jacobson
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer