alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6370** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. THOMAS EDWARD CARGILL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distr ict of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Roger W. Titus , District Judge. ( 8:08

- cr - 00204

- RWT

- 1; 8:09

- cv - 03055

- RWT )

Submitted : October 14, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opi nion
. Thomas Edward Cargill, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Joseph Leotta, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Edward Cargill seeks to a ppeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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). 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on proc edural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the re cord and conclude that Cargill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Cargill’s request for transcripts at government expense. We dispense with oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 22, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 00672

- CR

Stacey Bo Williamson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, J USTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error requiring reversal of the trial

court’s judgment of conviction : IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the

Court that the trial court’s judgment of conviction is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that

the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to c osts is made; and

that this decision be certified below for observance.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) 

          - [Docket No. RSPA-00-7666; Notice 1 and RSPA-00-7408; Notice 1] 

# AGENCY:

Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting and request for comments; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        RSPA published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 4, 2001, (66 FR 848) regarding a public meeting to be held February 12-14, 2001 on Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Natural Gas Pipelines) and Communications (Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines). The document contained errors in reference to the ending times of the meeting on February 12, 2001 and on February 13, 2001.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Callsen, OPS, (202) 366-4572. 

## Correction 

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         issue of January 4, 2001, 66 FR 848, in the second column, correct the second full paragraph to read:                         **DATES:**                         The public meeting will be on February 12, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., February 13, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and February 14, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, at the Crystal City Marriott.                     

Issued in Washington, DC on February 5, 2001. 

Stacey L. Gerard, 

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. 01-3398 Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
# Summer EBT Factsheet para sa mga Institusyon na Naglilingkod sa Imigrante

## Breadcrumb

-  Bahay 
-  Summer EBT 
-  Summer EBT Outreach Toolkit 

 I-print na bersyon

Summer EBT Outreach Toolkit

Na-update ang pahina: 01 February 2024
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-340-001]


Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Pro Forma Tariff

February 6, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 1, 2001, Gulf South Pipeline Company, 
LP (Gulf South) tendered for filing pro forma tariff sheets listed on 
the attachment to the filing, in compliance with Order No. 637 issued 
in Docket Nos. RM98-10 and RM98-12 on February 9, 2000.
    On June 15, 2000 Gulf South filed the pro forma tariff sheets 
necessary to implement Order No. 637 on its system. Since June Gulf 
South has participated in two technical conferences and has convened 
three customer meetings to discuss its implementation of Order No. 637. 
Through the course of these discussions, certain aspects of Gulf 
South's original filing have been modified or eliminated and new 
provisions have been added. While there is agreement on certain aspects 
of these proposed tariff sheets, there is not universal agreement on 
every aspect of this filing. The pro forma tariff sheets Gulf South has 
submitted replace the previously filed pro forma tariff sheets and 
represent a just and reasonable approach to implementing Order No. 637 
on this pipeline.
    Gulf South states that copies of this filing have been served upon 
Koch's customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3448 Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10491-10492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3809]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT01-10-000]


PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation; Notice of Refund 
Report

February 9, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 5, 2001, PG&E Gas Transmission, 
Northwest Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing a Refund Report for 
interruptible transportation revenue credits on its Coyote Springs 
Extension.
    GTN states that it refunded $844.19 to Portland General Electric 
Company, the sole eligible firm shipper on the Coyote Springs 
Extension, by credit billing adjustment on January 5, 2001.
    GTN further states that a copy of this filing has been served on 
all affected customers and interested state regulatory agencies.

[[Page 10492]]

    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before February 15, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the 
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3809 Filed 2-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
  By:
    /s/ DAVID R. BETHUNEDavid R. BethuneChairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)By:
    /s/ DIANE E. KLEINDiane E. KleinVice President - Finance and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 10.71**

**Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation**

 

During 2004, each of our non-employee directors received $2,000, plus expenses, for each scheduled meeting of the board of directors or non-coincident meeting of a board committee that he or she attended. In addition,the chairman of the Audit Committee received $4,000 for each meeting of the Audit Committee attended. Furthermore, under our Restated 2002 Director Option Plan, each non-employee director receives 14,286 options on the date of his or her firstelection or appointment. In addition, each non-employee director receives 14,286 options on the date of the first board meeting following our annual meeting of stockholders. 

 

Effective June 1, 2005, we began paying each of our non-employee directors a monthly stipend of $1,000, and reduced the permeeting fee payable to them to $1,500. All other compensation arrangements remain unchanged.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14
                OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS AMENDED


I John Ruth certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cole Computer
Corporation.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

     4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 for the registrant and have:

          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared:

          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          (c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date:

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

          (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and

     6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


                                          /s/ John Ruth
Date:  August 19, 2004                    --------------------------------------
                                          John Ruth, Chief Executive Officer
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 19-BG-57

IN RE DAVID A. WALKER

2018 DDN 271

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 420695

BEFORE: Beckwith and McLeese, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge. 

O R D E R

(FILED – April 11, 2019)

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey

suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of 

one year; this court’s February 15, 2019, order suspending respondent and directing 

him to show cause why reciprocal discipline of a one-year suspension with a fitness 

requirement should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel 

regarding reciprocal discipline; and it appearing that respondent has failed to file 

either a response to this court’s show cause order or an affidavit as required by D.C. 

Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that David A. Walker is hereby suspended from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year with reinstatement contingent 

on a showing of fitness. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010); In re Fuller, 

930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal 

discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement the period of 

respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar 

R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit. 

PER CURIAM
|                                  |  |                           
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Information Analysis Incorporated |  | 2006 Report on Form 10-KSB



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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Richard S. DeRose, Chief Financial Officer of Information Analysis Incorporated, a Virginia corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that:



| | 1 | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2 | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                                       
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2007 |  | By: |  | /S/ Richard S. DeRose                                 
|                     |  |     |  | Richard S. DeRose, Executive                          
|                     |  |     |  | Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Information Analysis
Incorporated and will be retained by Information Analysis Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,250
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,684
<INVENTORY>                                     13,117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,353
<PP&E>                                           8,735
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,085
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,480
<SALES>                                        159,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,136
<CGS>                                          114,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,435
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,924)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        69
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,993)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,993)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.98)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 10.27

                            LOAN EXTENSION AGREEMENT

                  Agreement dated as of December 15, 1997 by and between Royal
Canadian Foods Corp., a Delaware corporation, with offices at 1004 Second
Avenue, New York, NY 10022 ("Borrower") and Jan Wernick, who resides at 524
Longacre Avenue, Woodmere, NY 11598 ("Lender").

                                    RECITALS

                  WHEREAS, Borrower signed four Promissory Notes (collectively
referred to herein as the "Promissory Notes") to evidence four loans made by
Lender to Borrower.

                  WHEREAS, Lender and Borrower now wish to extend the due date
of each of the Promissory Notes from December 31, 1997 to December 31, 1998.

                  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other
good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Promissory Notes. The Promissory Notes, each of which accrues interest at 12%
per annum, evidence loans made on the following dates for the following amounts:


Loan Date                                                  Principal Amount
June 5, 1996                                               $50,000.00
June 26, 1996                                              $50,000.00
September 16, 1996                                         $100,000.00
March 13, 1997                                             $70,000.00

2. Extension. The due date of each of the Promissory Notes is hereby extended
from December 31, 1997 to December 31, 1998.

3. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall
constitute a single instrument.



                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the date first above written.

ROYAL CANADIAN FOODS CORP.


By:_____________________________
       Sheldon Golumbia, President



-----------------------------
Jan Wernick

                                        1