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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2480 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2480

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for 
  the Administrative Conference of the United States for fiscal years 
             2012, 2013, and 2014, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Administrative Conference of the 
United States Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 596 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
``Sec. 596. Authorization of appropriations
    ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
subchapter not more than $2,900,000 for fiscal year 2012, $2,900,000 
for fiscal year 2013, and $2,900,000 for fiscal year 2014. Of any 
amounts appropriated under this section, not more than $2,500 may be 
made available in each fiscal year for official representation and 
entertainment expenses for foreign dignitaries.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 1, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2480

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for 
  the Administrative Conference of the United States for fiscal years 
             2012, 2013, and 2014, and for other purposes.
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 14 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
DARREL JOSEPH GOURLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 99-3158
v. (D.C. No. 95-CV-3481-DES) DAVID MCKUNE, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS, (D. Kan.)

Respondents - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. Petitioner-Appellant Darrel Joseph Gourley, appeari ng pro se , appeals the order of the district court denying his petition fo r writ of habeas corpus under 28-2-

U.S.C. § 2254. As a preliminary matter, Appellees raise an issue of timeliness in filing the notice of appeal. We conclude that Mr. Gourley’s appeal is timely and that we have jurisdiction pursuant to Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992). Mr. Gourley is currently serving sentences of life for first degree murder, fifteen years to life for aggravated burglary, and nine years to life for felony theft as a result of 1977 convictions in state court. Inhis habeas petition before the district court, Mr. Gourley raised seven different claims of constitutional violation that occurred in the course of his trial in the state court system. After considering and rejecting each claim, the district court denied Mr. Gourley’s petition. This appeal followed, raising essentiall y the same constitutional claims. After review, we conclude that the district court’s decision is correct on the law and is fully supported by the record. We DENY the certificate of appealability and AFFIRM for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Order. Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
 
</LEGEND>
                       
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1996      
                                            
<CASH>                                         4,084,442
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  771,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                   23,918
<INVENTORY>                                    1,343,993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,848,300
<PP&E>                                         768,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,848,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,363,595
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,814
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,746,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,127,530
<SALES>                                        5,617,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,617,666
<CGS>                                          5,587,474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  598,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (50,053)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             36,930
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (231,138)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (231,138)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (231,138)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7000

ONTERIO DIMITRI BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00039-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: March 28, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Onterio Dimitri Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Onterio Dimitri Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and he has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. 

The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district 

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 

137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IRONWORKERS DISTRICT 

COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA & § No. 286, 2015 D

VICINITY RETIREMENT & 

PENSION PLAN, 

Plaintiff Below-Appellant,

v.

LAMBERTO ANDREOTTI, BART C.A. No. 9714-VCG

BAUDLER, JOHN BEDBROOK,

SAMUEL W. BODMAN, JAMES

BOREL, RICHARD H. BROWN, 

ROBERT A. BROWN, DENNIS 

BYRON, BERTRAND P.

COLLOMB, THOMAS M.

CONNELLY, DANIEL J. 

COSGROVE, CURTIS J.

CRAWFORD, ALEXANDER

M. CUTLER, JOHN T. DILLON,

ELEUTHERE I. DU PONT, ERIK 

FYRWALD, MARILLYN A.

HEWSON, CHARLES O. 

HOLLIDAY, ROBERT C.

IWIG, DANIEL E. JACOBI, LOIS D.

JULIBER, JEFFREY L. KEEFER, 

ELLEN KULLMAN, MICHAEL

LASSNER, TRACY LINBO, CARL 

J. LUKACH, JUDITH MCKAY, 

WILLIAM NIEBUR, DEAN

OESTREICH, WILLIAM K. 

REILLY, THOMAS L. SAGER, 

PAUL SCHICKLER, JOHN SOPER, 

LEE M. THOMAS, PATRICK J. 

WARD,

Defendants Below-Appellees,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 286, 2015

Court Below: Court of Chancery 

of the State of Delaware

C.A. No. 9714-VCG
2

and

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND 

COMPANY, 

Nominal Defendant BelowAppellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Submitted: January 27, 2016

Decided: January 28, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, VAUGHN, SEITZ, Justices; and 

MEDINILLA, Judge,constituting the Court en Banc.

O R D E R

This 28th day of January 2016, having considered this matter on the briefs 

filed by the parties and after oral argument, we find it evident that the judgment of 

the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons 

assigned in its May 8, 2015 decision.1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice 

 



Sitting by designation under Del. Const. art. IV, § 12.

1

Ironworkers Dist. Council of Phila. & Vicinity Ret. & Pension Plan v. Andreotti, 2015 WL 

2270673 (Del. Ch. May 8, 2015).
EXHIBIT 31

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 

 

I, Glen Var Rosenbaum, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-K of CorvusTechnologies Corp.

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight 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 financialstatements, 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(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure ontrols 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 theregistrant and have:

 

a)   Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)   Designed such internal control overfinancial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

c)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluations; and

 

d)   Disclosed in this report any changein 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 likelyto materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

 

 

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

 

a)   All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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.
CONSENT OF SUBSTITUTION OF PARTY


UC Case Nos. [****]


UC Agreement Control No. [****]







This substitution of party agreement ("Agreement") is effective as of October 21, 2010, by and among The Regents of the University of California, a California corporation, acting through its Santa Barbara campus having an Office of Technology & Industry Alliances located at 342 Lagoon Road, Mail Code 2055, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-2055 (“The Regents”); Appeal Capital Corp., having an office at 430 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (“Assignor”); and Nascent Water Technologies, Inc., a California corporation (and wholly-owned subsidiary of AcquaeBlu Corp., a Delaware corporation) having an office at 430 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (“Assignee”).







BACKGROUND







A.           The Regents and Assignor entered into a Letter of Intent effective May 11, 2010 (UC Agreement Control No.[****]) (“Original LOI”), wherein Assignor was granted certain rights in UC Case Nos. [****].


B.           The Regents and Assignor entered into a first amendment to the Original LOI effective September 10, 2010 (“Amendatory Agreement”), wherein UC Case No. [****] was added to the Inventions covered under the Original LOI, and wherein Assignor was granted certain rights in UC Case No. [****].  The Original LOI as amended by the Amendatory Agreement is herein referred to as the “LOI.”


C.           Assignor desires that Assignee be substituted in place of Assignor under the LOI, and The Regents is agreeable to such substitution.


D.           Assignee has read the LOI and agrees to abide by all of its terms and conditions.


 


The parties agree as follows:


 


1.      Assignee hereby assumes all liability and obligations under the LOI and is bound by all of its terms in all respects as if it were the original party to the LOI in place of Assignor.


2.      Assignee is hereby substituted for Assignor under the LOI, provided that Assignee assumes all liability and obligations under the LOI as if Assignee were the original party to the LOI as of the effective date of the LOI.


3.      The Regents releases Assignor from all liability and obligations under the LOI arising before or after the effective date of this Agreement.







The parties have executed this Agreement in triplicate originals by their respective authorized officers on the following day and year.






  





  











  






 



	
APPEAL CAPITAL CORP.

	  	
THE REGENTS OF THE


	  	  	
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA


	  	  	  	  	  
	
By:

	  	  	
By:

	  
	  	
(Signature)

	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	
Name:

	  	  	
Name:

	
Sherylle Mills Englander


	  	
(Please print)

	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	
Title:

	  	  	
Title:

	
Director,


	  	  	  	  	
Technology & Industry Alliances


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Date:

	  	  	
Date:

	  











	
NASCENT WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

	  
	  	  	  
	
By:

	  	  
	  	
(Signature)

	  
	  	  	  
	
Name:

	  	  
	  	
(Please print)

	  
	  	  	  
	
Title:

	  	  
	  	  	  
	
Date:
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

1.       The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Western Gas Resources, Inc. (“Western Gas Resources”).  This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Western Gas Resources for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

2.       We certify that such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Western Gas Resources.

 

This Certification is executed as of December 19, 2005.

 

 
|   | /s/ Peter A. Dea                                                              |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Peter A. Dea, Chief Executive Officer and President                      |
|   |                                                                          |
|   |                                                                          |
|   | /s/ William J. Krysiak                                                        |   |
|   | William J. Krysiak, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|        |                                                                               |        |  |

 

----
Exhibit 31.2
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, 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(s) 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:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):
    /s/ DAVID J. COLLINSDavid J. CollinsSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

133214 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. ROBERTA HOPKINS, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Olive Herford, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133214 COA: 261867 Genesee CC: 04-079449-NH JAMES E. GRAHAM, JR., M.D., and JAMES E. GRAHAM, JR., M.D., P.C., Defendants-Appellants,

and

FARAH TAHER, M.D., PHAN ANH NGUYEN, and HU RLEY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the
case of Mullins v St Joseph Mercy Hosp (Docket No. 131879) is pending on appeal
before this Court and that the decision in th at case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the app lication be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.

l0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 YEAR-TO-DATE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS REPORTED ON FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY  BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001014920
<NAME>                        OPTIKA INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         3,931
<SECURITIES>                                   3,895
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                      97
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              11,564
<PP&E>                                         5,734
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                17,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,253
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           7
<OTHER-SE>                                    11,143
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  17,403
<SALES>                                        8,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              15,719
<CGS>                                            635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              13,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,460)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (511)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (949)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (949)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.13)



</TABLE>