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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6406

CURTIS LEE WATSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TERRY O’BRIEN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00114-IMK-JSK)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Lee Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Erin K. 

Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Lee Watson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.* 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Watson v. O’Brien, No. 1:14-cv-00114-IMK-JSK (N.D.W. Va. 

Mar. 10, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

 * The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the district court judgment when the parties have been warned 

of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 

841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

155 (1985). Accordingly, because Watson’s only objection to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation was a citation to Daniel v. 

Fulwood, 766 F.3d 57 (D.C. Cir. 2014), we limit our review to 

whether the district court properly rejected Watson’s reliance on 

Daniel.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 7, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00152

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Q.M.C., A CHILD

From the 57th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021PA00761

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On March 23, 2022, we ordered appellant to file a response showing cause why this

appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We also suspended the deadlines in this

matter. On March 24, 2022, appellant filed a response indicating the district clerk would be

preparing a supplemental clerk’s record with a copy of the final order of termination to establish

our jurisdiction. The next day, the district clerk filed the supplemental clerk’s record.

Accordingly, because we now have jurisdiction over this matter, we reinstate the appellate

deadlines.

At this time, the notification of late record filed by the court reporter on March 24, 2022

is pending, and the court reporter filed the reporter’s record on April 6, 2022. We therefore

grant the requested extension and deem the reporter’s record as timely filed. The appellant’s

brief is due by April 18, 2022

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of April, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of Tychen L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 459]

of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about March 22, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to grant appellant an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. The underlying facts were serious and there are no compelling circumstances warranting a disposition not involving a juvenile delinquency adjudication. The record establishes that a conditional discharge was the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the needs of the community *(Matter of Katherine*W, 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Concur—Tom, J. E, Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.
# Result 8.5
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Virtual Radiologic Corporation;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)) 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)
    
    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(c)
    
    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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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.
 Date:      July 30, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Leonard C. PurkisLeonard C. PurkisChief Financial Officer
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 this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Susser Holdings Corporation (the Company) for the three months ended April 3, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mary E. Sullivan,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2011 |  |  |  |                                                                      
|                   |  |  |  | /s/ Mary E. Sullivan                                                 
|                   |  |  |  | Mary E. Sullivan Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### CRESMER v. UNITED STATES.

Civ. A. No. 9499.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

June 30, 1949.

*204Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl, New York City, for plaintiff. Russel S. Coutant, New York City, of counsel.

J. Vincent Keogh, United States Attorney, Brooklyn, N. Y., for the United States. Eli Resnikoff, Assistant United States Attorney, New York City, of counsel.

GALSTON, District Judge.

The matter for decision is a motion made on behalf of the plaintiff for an order directing the defendant to produce for inspection and copying by the plaintiff, the record or report of the investigation conducted by the Navy Board of Investigation of the air flight which is the subject of this action.

From the complaint it appears that the action is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2671 et seq. It is alleged that an airplane, owned and operated by the defendant, crashed into premises in Bay-side, Long Island, and resulted, because of the alleged negligence of the defendant, in the death of plaintiff’s intestate, who was on the premises at the time of the crashing of the plane.

The answer sets up, after certain denials, an affirmative defense that the airplane was operated by an employee of the defendant, who was acting Unlawfully and not within the scope of his office and employment.

The motion is opposed on the ground that the report is privileged. On the argument of the motion I said from the Bench that the Federal Tort Claims Act places the United States in respect to claims dealt with by the Act on a par with private litigants. So it was held in Wunderly et al. v. United States, D. C., 8 F. R. D., 356. However, to make sure that the report in question contained no military or service secrets which would be detrimental to the interests of the armed forces of the United States or to the National security, I requested counsel to produce the report for my examination. I have read it and I see •nothing in it which would in any way reveal a military secret or subject the United States and its armed forces to any peril by reason of complete revelation. •

Moreover, the very nature of the defense makes necessary for inspection the data which the plaintiff requires in the effort to sustain his case. I agree entirely with the reasoning of Judge McGranery in Wunderly et al. v. United States, supra. See also O’Neill v. United States et al., D. C., 79 F.Supp. 827, and Bank Line, Ltd., v. United States, D. C., 76 F.Supp. 801. Though the last two cases referred to arose in admiralty, the principle involved applies in this case. Nor is there any statutory bar.

In the absence of a showing of a war secret, or secret in respect to munitions of war, or any secret appliance used by the armed forces, or any threat to the National security, it would appear to be unseemly for the Government to thwart the efforts of a plaintiff in a case such as this to learn as much as possible concerning the cause of the disaster.

The motion is granted. Settle order on notice.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 938 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 77
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 938

                          [Report No. 116-419]

Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H.Res. 935) establishing 
      a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis as a select 
  investigative subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 2020

   Mr. McGovern, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H.Res. 935) establishing 
      a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis as a select 
  investigative subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

    Resolved, That House Resolution 935 is hereby adopted.
                                                  House Calendar No. 77

116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 938

                          [Report No. 116-419]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H.Res. 935) establishing 
      a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis as a select 
  investigative subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 23, 2020

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1056 

To clarify oversight and jurisdiction over the regulation, inspection, and 

labeling of cell-cultured meat and poultry, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 4, 2019 

Mrs. HYDE-SMITH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To clarify oversight and jurisdiction over the regulation, inspection, and labeling of cell-cultured meat and poultry, 

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 ‘‘Cell-Cultured Meat 

5 and Poultry Regulation Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) COMMISSIONER.—The term ‘‘Commis9 sioner’’ means the Commissioner of Food and 

10 Drugs. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1056 IS

1 (2) FOOD PRODUCT.—The term ‘‘food product’’ 

2 means a cell-cultured food product derived from live3 stock or poultry. 

4 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

5 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

6 SEC. 3. FOOD SAFETY INSPECTION OF CELL-CULTURED 

7 FOOD PRODUCTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the 

9 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Com10 missioner shall enter into a binding formal agreement re11 lating to the regulation of food products under which— 

12 (1) the Commissioner shall oversee cell collec13 tion, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation; 

14 (2) the Commissioner shall transition oversight 

15 authority of food products at the beginning of the 

16 cell harvest stage to the Secretary; and 

17 (3) the Secretary shall oversee the processing, 

18 preparation, packaging, and labeling of food prod19 ucts after the transition of oversight authority pur20 suant to paragraph (2). 

21 (b) DEFINITION OF FOOD PRODUCT FOR INSPEC22 TIONS.— 

23 (1) FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION ACT.—Section 

24 1(j) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 

25 601(j)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1056 IS

1 ‘‘or from any cell-cultured food product derived dur2 ing and after cell harvest from any amenable spe3 cies,’’ before ‘‘excepting products’’. 

4 (2) POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT.— 

5 Section 4(f) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act 

6 (21 U.S.C. 453(f)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or any 

7 cell-cultured food product derived during and after 

8 cell harvest from poultry,’’ before ‘‘excepting’’. 

9 (c) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 18 months after 

10 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in con11 sultation with the Commissioner, shall issue final regula12 tions— 

13 (1) that prescribe the type and frequency of in14 spection required for the manufacture and proc15 essing of food products; and 

16 (2) for the prevention of the adulteration and 

17 misbranding of food products. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 565 Lower Tribunal No. 19

- CF

- 16417

_____________________________
M ATTHEW G RIDLEY , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County

.

J. Frank Porter , Judge.

Feb ruary 6, 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

. TRAVER, C

. J.
, and SMITH and MIZE , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig , II, Public Defender, and Clayton R. Kaeiser, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Taylor A. Schell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Ko„ Cft

TSDS5 K\JL6^ WlY\\TvJ£

TPTV\£ vADnieM^LE COc?p>T QPanKUM^L WEILS'

dovwe.5 nou) T\t?s^ MU^v IW^dv^eViW^ v&aA.fAe?> ^W's t^Vte^

for a^ EtiwMon vf fii ac^I^ 6\<^p vyy v/U^W te6fe/g© |N

riUw S^ov45 4ml Coi-e #\jl 6>l(£OiHJ> 1 JUL 27 2015

X Abel Acosta,Cterk..

IWi^eAAioiW vlas OXHJcAcA iw-W 3^tV 3^^&l Ik^^f cWtp^

&&bfit\ \K hp^eA Mo. Wm-COOll-Cps* COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

-fre. cm*. v^s ^^ orv Tdv, SL . }^15 .JUL 27 2015

•J=t~" Abel Acosta, Cierk

IW ^rrcovrt- Ae&AW 6>r ^v"<uj, ^U *vHAb^ for DvscirdiOmiY

&a^ ^^v^b(\ prior 4o 4Ws request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

GEORGE SLAUGHTER,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 206 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### Dale Kleinser, Appellant, v Mark Astarita et al., Respondents.

Submitted August 13, 2012;

decided October 23, 2012

*1065Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed, with $400 costs and $100 costs of motion, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
J

- S32023

- 23

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

KEVON IMMANUEL PURIFORY

Appellant :
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 140 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 9, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 22

- CR

- 0000321

- 2021

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 12, 2023

Kevon Immanuel Purifory appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered after the trial court found him guilty of recklessly endangering another

person and not guilty of attempted murder and aggravated assault

. The

parties and the trial c ourt agree that Purifory ’s valid self

- defense claim

negates the recklessness required to sustain his conviction

. After review, we

reverse.
A “defender may not be simultaneously found to have justifiably acted

in self

- defense and be criminally liable for crimes involving recklessness or

malice.” Commonwealth v. Fowlin , 710 A.2d 1130, 1132 (Pa. 1998) (citing

Commonwealth v. Hilbert , 382 A.2d 724 (Pa. 1978), and Commonwealth

v. Heatherington
, 385 A.2d 338 (Pa. 1978) ). This includes crimes of

recklessne ss against bystanders. Id. at 1134.J

- S32023

- 23

- 2

-

Here, the trial court , as finder of fact, found that Purifory shot the

complainant in self

- defense. T his precludes a finding that Purifory acted

recklessly , towards both the complainant and other people in the apartmen t

complex. I

d. Accordingly, we reverse

. Judgment of sentence vacated

. Conviction reversed. Appellant Kevon

Immanuel Purifory discharged

. Jurisdiction relinquished.



### Date: 10/12/2023
Exhibit 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Westway Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |        |  |                                                      
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |        |  | /s/ Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.                           
|                        |  | Name:  |  | Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.                               
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
|Dated: November 9, 2009 |  |        |  |
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,560]


URS Corporation, Washington Division, Working On-Site at 
Caterpillar Technical Center Building G, 14009 Old Galena Road, 
Mossville, IL; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 26, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed on behalf of workers of URS Corporation, Washington 
Division, working on-site at Caterpillar Technical Center Building G, 
Mossville, Illinois.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition 
(TA-W-70,424) filed on May 22, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15754 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# covid_table38_c47_state