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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7927

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

TIMOTHY LEON NOGGIN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief 

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00237-JRS; 3:07−cv−00071−JRS) 

Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009 

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Timothy Leon Noggin, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Timothy Leon Noggin seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Noggin 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 the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.M.H.,

A CHILD §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00257

- CV

Appeal from

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2012DCM02211)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order that because Appellant is indige nt, no order regarding costs

is made. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Befor e McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Rivera, J., not participating)
Exhibit 32.4

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The  undersigned  hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership III-D ("Issuer") for the period ending
December 31, 2006 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

      Dated this 16th day of April, 2007.

                                GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                PARTNERSHIP III-D
                                ("Issuer")

                                //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                -----------------------------------
                                Dennis R. Neill
                                President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                -----------------------------------
                                Craig D. Loseke
                                Chief Accounting Officer
                                (Chief Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE HOUSTON EXPLORATION COMPANY SET FORTH IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,935
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,855
<PP&E>                                       1,075,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                 500,138
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 631,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,496
<BONDS>                                        260,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           239
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   631,451
<SALES>                                        103,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,479
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,111
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,648
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,463
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3367 

To provide public safety officer disability benefits to officers disabled before 

the enactment of the Federal public safety officer disability benefits law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 4, 2011 

Mr. TOWNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide public safety officer disability benefits to officers 

disabled before the enactment of the Federal public safety officer disability benefits law. 

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 ‘‘Disabled Public Safety 

5 Officers Fairness Act of 2011’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3367 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISABILITY BENEFITS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFI2 CERS DISABLED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF 

3 PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DISABILITY LAW. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1201(b) of the Omnibus 

5 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

6 3796(b)) is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting after ‘‘determines that a public 

8 safety officer has’’ the following: ‘‘, whether before, 

9 on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act,’’; 

10 and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following new sen12 tence: ‘‘In the case of a public safety officer seeking 

13 a benefit under the previous sentence on the basis 

14 of having been permanently and totally disabled as 

15 the direct result of a catastrophic injury sustained in 

16 the line of duty before the date of the enactment of 

17 this Act, such officer may file a claim under this 

18 subsection during the same period that would be ap19 plicable to such an officer so disabled after the date 

20 of the enactment of this Act, except that in lieu of 

21 such a period beginning on the date of the injury 

22 such period shall begin on the date of the enactment 

23 of the Disabled Public Safety Officers Fairness Act 

24 of 2011.’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3367 IH

1 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub2 section (a) apply to any public safety officer alive on or 

3 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3329 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the eligibility period for 

veterans to enroll in certain vocational rehabilitation programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana, 

Mr. RUSH, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. FILNER, Mr. BENISHEK, and Mr. BRALEY

of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the eligibility period for veterans to enroll in certain vocational 

rehabilitation programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ELIGIBILITY PERIOD FOR VO4 CATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAMS. 

5 (a) EXTENSION.—Section 3103 of title 38, United 

6 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘twelve-year period’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘fifteen-year period’’ each place it appears. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a veteran applyVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:26 Nov 04, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3329.IH H3329

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3329 IH

1 ing for assistance under chapter 31 of title 38, United 

2 States Code, on or after the date of the enactment of this 

3 Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[953 NYS2d 813]

#### Town Management Co., Respondent, v Michael Leibowitz, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts,

August 7, 2012

*50APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael Leibowitz,*appellant pro se. *Morris K. Mitrani, P.C.,*New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that landlord’s motion is granted only to the extent of severing the counterclaims; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In his answer to this nonpayment proceeding, tenant interposed counterclaims for “abuse of action, common law deceit, and barratry.” Upon landlord’s motion to strike the counterclaims, the Housing Part struck them but, giving tenant’s pleading a liberal reading, allowed tenant’s supporting allegations to stand as a counterclaim for harassment pursuant to Local Law No. 7 (2008) of City of New York. Tenant appeals from so much of the order as struck his counterclaims for “abuse of action, common law deceit, and barratry.”

In our view, the counterclaims for “abuse of action, common law deceit, and barratry” should have been severed, not stricken. RPAPL 743 permits a respondent in a summary proceeding to interpose any legal counterclaim. However, as residential summary proceedings in the City of New York are heard in the Housing Part of the Civil Court *(see*CCA 110; Uniform Rules for NY City Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.42 [a]), which part is not authorized to hear tort counterclaims for damages (CCA 110), the court should have severed the counterclaims for “abuse of action, common law deceit, and barratry” without passing on their merits. We modify the order, insofar as appealed from, accordingly. We note that so much of the Civil Court’s order as deemed the answer to assert a counterclaim for damages for harassment pursuant to Local Law 7 is not before us *(but see generally 226-228 E. 26th St. LLC v Rhodes,*NYLJ, Jan. 15, 2009 [Civ Ct, NY County 2009] [the remedies provided by Local Law 7 do not include a private right to damages]). We likewise do not pass on the validity of the severed counterclaims.

*51Pesce, PJ., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11
                         HEALTHCOR HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     UNAUDITED NET INCOME PER COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES

PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE      THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                   --------------------------
                                                      1997           1996
                                                   -----------     ----------
Net income ......................................  $ 1,808,252     $  971,286
                                                   ===========     ==========
Shares:
   Weighted average common shares issued ........   10,023,416      2,959,099
   Assuming exercise of options,
   reduced by the number of common shares which 
    could have been purchased with the proceeds
    from exercised of such options ..............      154,136        245,034
   Assuming conversion of Series A ..............         --
   preferred stock ..............................    2,000,000
   Assuming conversion of Series B ..............         --
   preferred stock ..............................    1,339,297
                                                   -----------     ----------
   Weighted average number of common shares
    outstanding, as adjusted ....................   10,177,552      6,543,430
                                                   ===========     ==========
Net income per common share .....................  $      0.18     $     0.15
                                                   ===========     ==========
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
DeVlieg-Bullard, Inc.


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-40874, 33-54608, 33-85528, 333-02335 and
333-22667) of DeVlieg-Bullard, Inc. of our report dated September 15, 1998,
except as to Notes 7 and 8 which are as of November 9, 1998, appearing on page
20 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedules which appears on
page 50 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
November 9, 1998
Exhibit 32.1


                             Transbotics Corporation

                   Certification of Periodic Financial Report
                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, the undersigned officers of the Transbotics Corporation
(the "Company") certify that the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for
the fiscal period ending November 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities exchange Act 1934,
and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: February 24, 2004

                                             /s/ Claude Imbleau
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Claude Imbleau
                                             President and CEO
                                             (principal executive officer and
                                             principal accounting officer)


*    This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
     1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any
     other purpose.






                                       34
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 302 

To provide for State approval of national monuments, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2011 

Ms. FOXX (for herself, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. HERGER, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. POE of Texas, and Mr. PEARCE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for State approval of national monuments, 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 ‘‘Preserve Land Free5 dom For Americans Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. 

7 The Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 431), by striking 

10 ‘‘SEC. 2. That the’’ and inserting the following: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 302 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. 

2 ‘‘After obtaining approval from the Governor and the 

3 legislature of each State within the boundaries of which 

4 the proposed national monument would be located, the’’; 

5 and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC USE. 

8 ‘‘The Secretary of the Interior shall not implement 

9 any restrictions on the public use of a national monument 

10 until the expiration of an appropriate review period (as 

11 determined by the Secretary of the Interior) providing for 

12 public input and State approval under section 2.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2621 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2621

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to use a time requirement for 
    determining eligibility for the reimbursement of certain travel 
                               expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2009

Mr. McCarthy of California (for himself and Mr. McKeon) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to use a time requirement for 
    determining eligibility for the reimbursement of certain travel 
                               expenses.

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

SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN TRAVEL EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1074i of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``more than 100 miles'' 
        and inserting ``at a location that is more than 90 minutes 
        driving time, as determined under subsection (c),'';
            (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
            (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
        subsection (c):
    ``(c) Driving Time.--For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary 
shall prescribe regulations that--
            ``(1) define driving time;
            ``(2) specify the method that will be used to calculate 
        driving time through the use of an Internet-based global 
        tracking system that determines time and distance; and
            ``(3) ensure that time spent in traffic congestion will not 
        be considered in the calculation of driving time.''.
    (b) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the 
regulations required by subsection (c) of section 1074i of title 10, 
United States Code, as added by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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




I, David M.  Barnes,  Vide  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of American
United Global,  Inc. (the  "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

(1)  The Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Report") for the periods of
     August 1, 2002 through June 16, 2003 and June 17, 2003 through December 31,
     2003,  which  this  certification  accompanies,  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.

Dated:     July 16, 2004

/s / David M. Barnes
--------------------

David M. Barnes
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  American  United  Global,  Inc.,  and will be retained by American
United Global, Inc. and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.