alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James VANG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of SCDC; Warden of Perry Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 11-6037.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

James Vang, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*294PER CURIAM:

James Vang seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the court’s order denying Vang’s motion to reconsider. The orders are 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vang has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Vang’s motion for 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.*
Exhibit 32.2



Liquid Audio, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liquid Audio, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Seymour Holtzman, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated November 14, 2003



/s/ Seymour HoltzmanSeymour HoltzmanCo-Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         244,104
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       7,895,043
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    270,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         937,938
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           954,000
<LOANS>                                     20,109,900
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (52,171)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,983,864
<DEPOSITS>                                  26,429,517
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            266,891
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,319
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,244,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              30,983,864
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,467,693
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              104,546
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               429,938
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,002,177
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,222,575
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,222,575
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          779,602
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    6,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                571,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                249,004
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     157,364
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   157,364
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.72
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                46,171
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               52,171
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            52,171
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4

                       CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS
                                       OF
                              QUEST SOFTWARE, INC.,
                            A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION


        The undersigned, J. Michael Vaughn, certifies that:

        A. I am General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Quest Software, Inc.,
a California corporation (the "Company"), and I am duly authorized to make,
execute and deliver this certificate;

        B. Section 3.2 of the Company's Second Amended and Restated Bylaws, as
amended ("Bylaws") is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

        "3.2. NUMBER OF DIRECTORS. The authorized number of directors of the
        corporation shall be not less than four (4) nor more than seven (7) and
        the exact number of directors shall be set by a resolution duly adopted
        by the Board of Directors or by the shareholders. The minimum and
        maximum number of directors may be changed, or a definite number may be
        fixed without provision for an indefinite number, by a duly adopted
        amendment to the Articles of Incorporation or by an amendment to this
        Bylaw duly adopted by vote or written consent of holders of a majority
        of the outstanding shares entitled to vote; provided, however, that an
        amendment reducing the fixed number or minimum number of directors to a
        number less than five (5) cannot be adopted if the votes cast against
        its adoption at a meeting, or the shares not consenting in the case of
        an action by written consent, are equal to more than sixteen and
        two-thirds percent (16-2/3%) of the outstanding shares entitled to vote
        thereon. No reduction of the authorized number of directors shall have
        the effect of removing any director before that director's term of
        office expires."

        C. The foregoing amendment to the Bylaws was adopted by resolution of
the Company's Board of Directors and approved by the Company's shareholders, and
became effective on May 30, 2001. By resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Company, the exact number of directors has been increased to six (6) from five
(5).


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certificate as of
August 8, 2001.

                                            QUEST SOFTWARE, INC.



                                            By:    /s/ J. Michael Vaughn
                                                   ------------------------
                                                   J. Michael Vaughn,
                                                   General Counsel and
                                                   Assistant Secretary
#### In the Matter of The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Court Reporting Institute, Inc., et al., Appel*565lants.

[666 NYS2d 730]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 63 (12), *inter alia,*for injunctive relief and restitution for repeated fraud in conducting business, the Court Reporting Institute, Inc., Mary Hauptman, and Ted Doukas appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated October 7, 1996, which, *inter alia,*declined to dismiss the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant Court Reporting Institute, Inc. (hereinafter CRI), operates a trade school to train and certify court reporters. The appellants Mary Hauptman and Ted Doukas are the only officers and joint shareholders of CRI.

The Attorney-General initiated this proceeding alleging that the appellants have victimized their students through the improper management of their curriculum, tuition overcharges, and false promises of employment. He seeks to enjoin these allegedly deceptive and illegal practices and to obtain restitution for current and former students, as well as civil penalties and costs.

The Attorney-General alleges, *inter alia,*that the appellants engaged in false and misleading advertising. The appellants assert that such claims are barred by the principles of estoppel pursuant to a 1992 Consent Agreement between CRI and the New York State Education Department (hereinafter SED), and that all of the advertisements which are now alleged to contain misleading statements were approved by SED. However, a review of the record shows that SED only reviewed the advertisements as to form and did not, and could not, confirm the accuracy of the statements contained therein.

Furthermore, SED’s approval of the advertisements pursuant to the 1992 Consent Agreement does not bar this proceeding under the principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel. The allegations in the instant petition go beyond those previously made against CRI and relate to its allegedly fraudulent practices beyond the time frame of the Consent Agreement *(see generally,*Siegel, NY Prac §§ 442, 443, at 585-587).

Contrary to the appellants’ claims, the petition does state viable claims against the individual appellants. In a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 63 (12), officers and directors of a corporation may be held liable for fraud if they participate in it or have actual knowledge of it *(see, People v Apple Health & Sports Clubs,*80 NY2d 803; *People v Concert Connection,*211 AD2d 310, 320).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,310
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  236,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          28,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                     484
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 323,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           178
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   323,919
<SALES>                                         45,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,256
<CGS>                                           26,456
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,574
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,574
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,574
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09




</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                    THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

          THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment"), dated as of
October 15, 1999, between bamboo.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation (formerly
known as Jutvision Corporation) (the "Company"), and Andrew P. Laszlo,
("Employee"), amends the Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 1999,
between bamboo.com and Employee (the "Agreement").

          IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

          1.   Base Salary; Bonus Compensation. Effective October 1, 1999:  (i)
               -------------------------------
the Base Salary set forth in Section 4.1 of the Agreement is increased to an
annual rate of $240,000 and (ii) notwithstanding Section 4.2 of the Agreement,
Employee shall receive no Bonus Compensation for the fourth quarter of 1999 or
for any quarter of 2000.

          2.   Miscellaneous. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement
               -------------
is, and shall remain, in full force and effect and each and every term and
condition thereof is hereby confirmed, continued and ratified. All terms defined
in the Agreement, except as otherwise defined herein, shall have the same
meanings where used herein. This Amendment may not be altered, amended or
modified in any way except by a writing signed by both parties. This Amendment
may be executed by exchange of signature pages by facsimile and/or in any number
of counterparts, each of which shall be an original as against the party whose
signature appears thereon and all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
day and year first above written.


BAMBOO.COM, INC.                           ANDREW P. LASZLO


By: /s/ Leonard B. McCurdy                  /s/ Andrew P. Laszlo
    --------------------------             --------------------------------
Name: Leonard B. McCurdy
      ------------------------
Title:  Chairman and CEO
       -----------------------
Exhibit 31.2

I, Kenneth T. Myers, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant, Digital Lightwave, 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)) 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 function):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.

Date: November 7, 2006



By:

/s/ KENNETH T. MYERSKenneth T. MyersChief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
1

Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not

participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of

the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7256

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT STERLING DORSEY, a/k/a Pete Dorsey,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-99-254)

Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 30, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG,1

 and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Sterling Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks,

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

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2The district court recharacterized Dorsey’s paper entitled

“motion to amend sentence” as a “motion to correct sentence,”

presumably brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Sterling Dorsey seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).2 An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Dorsey 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
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22095]

[[Page 47604]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control

Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13581

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of a person whose property and 
interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 
13581 of July 24, 2011, ``Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal 
Organizations.''

DATES: OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on May 
16, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Department of the Treasury's 
Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, 
tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 
202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, 
tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the 
Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, 
tel.: 202-622-2410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN 
List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are 
available from OFAC's Web site at http://www.treasury.gov/ofac.

Notice of OFAC Actions

    On May 16, 2017, OFAC removed from the SDN List the person listed 
below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant 
to Executive Order 13581.

Individual

    1. FERRARI, Raffaella, Parkshot House, 5 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey 
TW9 2PR, United Kingdom; Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom; 69 
Buchanan Street, Glasgow, Scotland G1 3HL, United Kingdom; DOB 01 Nov 
1972 to 30 Nov 1972; nationality Italy (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: 
PACNET SERVICES LTD.; Linked To: CHEXX ITALIA SRL; Linked To: THE 
PAYMENTS FACTORY LTD.; Linked To: COUNTING HOUSE SERVICES LTD.; Linked 
To: PACNET GROUP).

    Dated: May 16, 2017.
Andrea Gacki,
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

    Editorial note: This document was received for publication by 
the Office of the Federal Register on October 6, 2017.
[FR Doc. 2017-22095 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
```