alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ANTHONY JENKINS, a/k/a Domonique Jenkins, a/k/a Todd Jenkins, a/k/a Tone, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-81-N) Sumitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 6, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Jenkins filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court may, upon a showing of excusable neglect, extend by thirty days the time for filing a notice of appeal. See United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). Under Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the notice is considered filed as of the date Appellant delivered it to prison officials for forwarding to the court. The district court entered its order on May 1, 1996. However, upon Jenkins's motion, the court extended the time to file a notice of appeal to June 14, 1996. The record discloses that Jenkins did not relay his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing until June 21, 1996. Jenkins's failure to note an appeal within the permissible extension period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. We therefore 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
#### In the Matter of Seymour R. Oppenheim, Executor of Lena S. Oppenheim, Deceased, Appellant. Harry Oppenheim, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [178 Misc. 1035.]
OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

119) ll-K- (B) -108 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:52 AM Sheet 119 of 325 

P.1 
P.2 

/A\ Pl 

II-K-(B)-108 

REGIONAL COAL DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR NEW INDUSTRIAL 

BOILERS INSTALLED AFTER 1985 

Letter from T. Hogan, EEA to R. Short, EPA:EAB 

May 5, 1983 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B-)-106
### §1866. Shark feeding

Except to the extent determined by the Secretary, or under State law, as presenting no public health hazard or safety risk, or when conducted as part of a research program funded in whole or in part by appropriated funds, it is unlawful to introduce, or attempt to introduce, food or any other substance into the water to attract sharks for any purpose other than to harvest sharks within the Exclusive Economic Zone seaward of the State of Hawaii and of the Commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States in the Pacific Ocean Area.

(Pub. L. 94–265, title III, §317, as added Pub. L. 109–479, title I, §119, Jan. 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3607.)
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

          In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of North Shore
Capital IV, Inc., (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gerard Werner,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1)     The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.

Dated: October 17, 2005


/s/ Gerard Werner
Chief Executive Officer
October 17, 2005



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

             KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Bradbury Dyer, III, having an
address at 500 Crescent Court, Dallas, Texas 75201, has made, constituted and
appointed and BY THESE PRESENTS, does make, constitute and appoint GUS J. ATHAS,
having an address at Two North Riverside Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60606, his
true and lawful Attorney-in Fact for him and in his name, place and stead to
sign and execute in any and all capacities to sign this Annual Report on Form
10-K and any or all amendments to this Annual Report on form 10-K, and to file
the same with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, giving and granting unto Gus J.
Athas, said Attorney-in-Fact, full power and authority to do and perform each
and every act and thing, requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully, to all intents and purposes as he might or could do if
personally present at the doing thereof, with full power of substitution and
revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said Attorney-in-Fact or
her substitutes shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

             This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until
terminated by the undersigned through the instrumentality of a signed writing.

             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Bradbury Dyer, III, has hereunto set his hand
this 20th day of February, 1996.


                                                     /s/ Bradbury Dyer, III
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Bradbury Dyer, III

STATE OF TEXAS    )
                  ) SS
COUNTY OF         )

             I, Kathleen Wright, a Notary Public in and for said County in the
State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Bradbury Dyer, III, personally known to
me to be the same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument
appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that he signed and
delivered said instrument as his own free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes therein set forth.

             Given under my hand and notarial seal this 20th day of February,
1996.

                                                     /s/ Kathleen Wright
                                                     ----------------------
                                                         (Notary Public)

My Commission Expires:
       8/26/98
----------------------
§ 541.26 Review of placement in the SHU. Your placement in the SHU will be reviewed by the Segregation Review Official (SRO) as follows: ( a ) *Three day review.* Within three work days of your placement in administrative detention status, not counting the day you were admitted, weekends, and holidays, the SRO will review the supporting records. If you are in disciplinary segregation status, this review will not occur.
( b ) *Seven day reviews.* Within seven continuous calendar days of your placement in either administrative detention or disciplinary segregation status, the SRO will formally review your status at a hearing you can attend. Subsequent reviews of your records will be performed in your absence by the SRO every seven continuous calendar days thereafter.
( c ) *Thirty day reviews.* After every 30 calendar days of continuous placement in either administrative detention or disciplinary segregation status, the SRO will formally review your status at a hearing you can attend.
( d ) *Administrative remedy program.* You can submit a formal grievance challenging your placement in the SHU through the Administrative Remedy Program, 28 CFR part 542, subpart B.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**ALISHA SICILIANO, CASSIE STARETZ,**

**SAMANTHA LYNN EARLY AND JUSTIN ECK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF** 

**OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS,** 

**Petitioners**

**v.**

**ALBERT/CAROL MUELLER, T/A MCDONALDS; ALBERT AND CAROL** 
**MUELLER LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS;**
**ALBERT MUELLER, INDIVIDUALLY; AND CAROL MUELLER, INDIVIDUALLY,** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 150 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 10th day of December, 2015, the Petition for E xtraordinary Relief** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
Exhibit 32

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


         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Harvest  Valley  Ventures,
Inc.,  on Form  10-QSB for the  period  ending  June 30,  2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         1. 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.


Date: September 4, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5


<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 1st Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                 2,334
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       2,334
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         2,334
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              51,900
<OTHER-SE>                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               0
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         (49,566)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.02)





</TABLE>
# C_2013252EN.01001201.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers, Visys NV

(Case C-657/11) (1)

1

(Directives 84/450/EEC and 2006/114/EC - Misleading and comparative advertising - Definition of ‘advertising’ - Registration and use of a domain name - Use of metatags in a website’s metadata)

2013/C 252/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV

Applicant:

Defendants: Bert Peelaers, Visys NV

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), and Article 2 of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21) — Definition of advertising — Registration and use of a domain name — Use of metatags in a website’s metadata

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 and Article 2(a) of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘advertising’, as defined by those provisions, covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the use of a domain name and that of metatags in a website’s metadata. By contrast, the registration of a domain name, as such, is not encompassed by that term.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

1

---
#### Joseph McLaughlin, Respondent, v. John M. Reddington, Appellant.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the defendant to plead over within twenty days upon payment of the costs of the demurrer and of this appeal. AE concurred.
#### Square Coal Corporation v. Sarah Insbl et al.—-

Present —■ Townley, Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:2011-7-3 Order Requesting Proposals.
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                  3-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          JAN-01-2000
[PERIOD-END]                               MAR-27-1999
[CASH]                                           4,033
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                    7,944
[ALLOWANCES]                                       916
[INVENTORY]                                     46,343
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                60,837
[PP&E]                                          94,081
[DEPRECIATION]                                  23,098
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 148,929
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                           33,147
[BONDS]                                         60,000
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                            49
[OTHER-SE]                                      29,806
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   148,929
[SALES]                                        123,668
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               123,668
[CGS]                                           94,743
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                   94,743
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                28,702
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                               1,871
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                (1,648)
[INCOME-TAX]                                       375
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                            (2,023)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                   (2,023)
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                    (.41)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                    (.41)
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,559
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,848,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,689,398
<PP&E>                                         125,126
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,287,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,819,711
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        192
<COMMON>                                         1,637
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,534,401)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,287,139
<SALES>                                         28,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,803
<CGS>                                           17,821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             148,512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,139,856)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,139,856)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,139,856)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.71)


</TABLE>
### §407c. Repealed. Pub. L. 88–249, §5, Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 819

Section, act May 14, 1930, ch. 272, §4, 46 Stat. 279, related to the boundaries of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. See section 407e of this title.
EXHIBIT
31.2





CERTIFICATION





I,
Alfonso de Borbon, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Teleconnect Inc. for the three
month period ended March 31, 2009;





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 the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;





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 and 15d-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 prepare





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
functions):





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 officer 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.





October
2, 2009





By:
                /s/Alfonso
      de BorbonAlfonso
      de Borbon
                  Director,
      Chief Accounting and Financial
                  Officer,
      Executive Vice President and Chief
                  Operating
      Officer
#### McBride *v.*Goodhue.

June 18, 1910.

Action for damages. Before Judge Mitchell. Thomas superior court.

March 13, 1909.

*J. F. Mitchell*and *Roddenbery & Luke,*for plaintiff in error.

*Theodore Titus*and *T. N. Hopkins,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

1. In a suit by a guest against an innkeeper for the loss of jewelry and valuable articles, alleged to have been taken from the room occupied by the guest, the issue being whether the innkeeper had made a rule requiring valuable articles to be deposited in a safe provided by him, and had duly posted such rule in accordance with the Civil Code, § 2937, it was not admissible to ask the plaintiff, on cross-examination, if the wife of the innkeeper did not warn her, on a certain occasion, to leave her jewelry in a safe of the hotel provided for the safe-keeping of the valuables of guests.

2. While the evidence was conflicting, it was sufficient to sustain the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*