alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

In Re:

Melvin LaJuan Rich and Shenita Fauntleroy Rich

a/k/a Shenita E Fauntleroy

Debtors

BCN#: 18-32584-KRH

Chapter: 13

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

The undersigned hereby appears in these Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Proceedings as Counsel

for OneMain Financial Services, Inc. and requests that she be placed upon the mailing list of those

creditors, parties in interest and Counsel who receive all Notices in these proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

Shapiro & Brown, LLP

By: /s/ Malcolm B. Savage, III

Gregory N. Britto, Esquire VSB #23476

William M. Savage, Esquire VSB #26155

Malcolm B. Savage, III, Esquire VSB #91050

Thomas J. Gartner, Esquire VSB #79340

Mary F. Balthasar Lake, Esquire VSB #34899

Leonard C. Tengco, Esquire VSB #76395

Shapiro & Brown, LLP

501 Independence Parkway, Suite 203

Chesapeake, Virginia 23320

(703) 449-5800

CERTIFICATE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically transmitted and/or mailed, by first

class mail, this 23rd day of May, 2018, to the following:

Julia Bonham Adair

Hathaway Adair, P.C.

710 N. Hamilton Street Suite 200

Richmond, VA 23221

Carl M. Bates

P. O. Box 1819

Richmond, VA 23218

/s/ Malcolm B. Savage, III

Gregory N. Britto, Esquire

Malcolm B. Savage, III, Esquire

William M. Savage, Esquire

Thomas J. Gartner, Esquire

Mary F. Balthasar Lake, Esquire

Leonard C. Tengco, Esquire

Shapiro & Brown, LLP

501 Independence Parkway, Suite 203

Chesapeake, Virginia 23320

(703) 449-5800 18-275016

Case 18-32584-KRH Doc 12 Filed 05/23/18 Entered 05/23/18 13:59:37 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00355

- CV

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR

, Appellant

v.

SAM ROUND

, Appellee

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 88611

ORDER

William M. Windsor’s Request for Scheduling Order is denied. The Court has

provided Windsor with a schedule of deadlines for past due items. The Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure provides the deadlines for any future filings.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Request denied

Order issued and filed June 18, 2015
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PERKUMPULAN INVESTOR CRISIS

CENTER DRESSEL - WBG,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DANNY MK WONG, also known as

Wong Man Kee; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-36059

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00526-JCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 2, 2010

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

We adopt the well-considered opinion of the district court and affirm its

judgment. 

FILED

SEP 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Allied Motion
Technologies Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-44997, 333-21337, 333-55344, 333-122281 and
333-149279) on Form S-8 and in the registration statement (No.333-119090) on Form S-3 of Allied Motion Technologies Inc. of our
report dated March 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Allied Motion Technologies Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' investment and comprehensive income and cash flows for the year then ended and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in
the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Allied Motion Technologies Inc.

Ehrhardt
Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC

March 14,
2008
Denver, Colorado

---



QuickLinks
### §470s. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 89–665, title II, §211, as added Pub. L. 94–422, title II, §201(9), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1322; amended Pub. L. 96–515, title III, §301(l), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2999; Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4018, Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4763, related to rules and regulations and participation by local governments in proceedings. See section 304108(a), (b) of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
Exhibit 32.1
          Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                      of Title 18 of the United States Code

I, Thomas I. Morgan, the president and chief executive officer of Hughes Supply,
Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge, (i) the Form 10-K for the
period ended January 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Hughes Supply, Inc.


Date: April 14, 2004                   By: /s/  THOMAS I. MORGAN
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Thomas I. Morgan
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Hughes Supply, Inc. and will be retained by Hughes Supply, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 303.111 State definition of developmental delay. Each system must include the State's rigorous definition of *developmental delay,* consistent with §§ 303.10 and 303.203(c), that will be used by the State in carrying out programs under part C of the Act in order to appropriately identify infants and toddlers with disabilities who are in need of services under part C of the Act. The definition must— ( a ) Describe, for each of the areas listed in § 303.21(a)(1), the evaluation and assessment procedures, consistent with § 303.321, that will be used to measure a child's development; and
( b ) Specify the level of developmental delay in functioning or other comparable criteria that constitute a developmental delay in one or more of the developmental areas identified in § 303.21(a)(1).
(Approved by Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0550) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1435(a)(1))
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

CHAPTER 10 
10.0 Public Comments and Responses 

The Draft EIS was noticed by the USEPA on March 30, 2007, in the Federal Register. The BLM mailed 

718 copies of the Draft EIS to interested parties, including federal, state, and local officials and agencies; 

special interest groups; parties to the proceeding; area libraries and newspapers; and individuals and 

affected landowners. A 45-day comment period following the notice in the Federal Register ended on 

May 14, 2007. 

The BLM received comments on the Draft EIS from a total of 15 parties; one of which responded twice. 

Each comment letter was given an index number, which is listed in Table 10-1 along with the affiliation and 

name of the commenter, if appropriate. The commenter index numbers are listed in one of five categories: 

F-federal agencies or officials; S-state agencies or officials; L-local (county or municipal) agencies or 

officials; E-elected officials; P-private individual or industry. 

All comments received during the public review period were reviewed and considered in preparation of this 

Final EIS. Copies of letters received have been reprinted in this chapter along with responses to those 

comments. As noted previously, substantive changes in the Final EIS are indicated by vertical bars that 

appear in the margins. These changes were made both in response to comments received on the Draft EIS 

and as a result of updated information that became available after issuance of the Draft EIS. 

The BLM would like to thank all those who helped in the preparation of the EIS by submitting comments. 

Table 10-1 Public Comment Index Codes 

Federal Agency Letters 

F1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

F2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

State Agency Letters 

S1 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

S2 Wyoming Game and Fish 

Local Government Letters 

L1 Sweetwater County Board of Commissioners 

L2 Russell County Economic Development Council 

L3 Barton County Board of Commissioners 

L4 Russell County Board of Commissioners 

L5 McPherson County Board of Commissioners 

Elected Officials Letters 

E1 Kansas State Senator Emler 

E2 Kansas State Representative Holmes 

E3 Kansas State Representative Svaty 

Private Individuals or Industry Letters 

P1 Overland Pass 

P2 Overland Pass (Errata) 

P3 Wyoming Pipeline Authority 

P4 Mike Smith – University of Wyoming 

10-1
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

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)

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), each of the undersigned officers of Excelsior Venture Partners III, LLC (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | --------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 17, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Leo P. Grohowski    
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Leo P. Grohowski          
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 17, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Raghav V. Nandagopal
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Raghav V. Nandagopal      
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 17, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert F. Aufenanger
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Robert F. Aufenanger      
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Treasurer                 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 14979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6453]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the 
Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee (MDCC).
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should inform the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee.
    Date: April 20, 2011.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: The 2011 meeting of the MDCC will review Federal agency 
activities in the muscular dystrophies, brief participants on the 
NIH grant database, NIH RePORTER, discuss therapy development 
resources at the NIH, and review joint NIH/FDA activities and 
initiatives in rare diseases. The MDCC will also discuss new 
opportunities in therapy development based upon a representative 
example of a new mechanistic finding and the lessons learned in 
current drug development programs. A panel will review and discuss 
the challenges of conducting clinical trials in the muscular 
dystrophies.
    An agenda will be posted prior to the meeting on the MDCC Web 
site: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/find_people/groups/mdcc/index.htm.
    Place: Hilton Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 1750 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-1699.
    Contact Person: John D. Porter, PhD, Executive Secretary, 
Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee, National Institute of 
Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, 
NSC 2172, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-5739, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f4849b868091869e9bb49a9d9a9087da9a9d9cda939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="75051a070110071f1a351b1c1b11065b1b1c1d5b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 11, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-6453 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4969 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 

clinic in Las Cruces, New Mexico, as the ‘‘Las Cruces Bataan Memorial 

Clinic’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 31, 2019 

Ms. TORRES SMALL of New Mexico (for herself, Mr. LUJA ́N, and Ms. 

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

A BILL 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs communitybased outpatient clinic in Las Cruces, New Mexico, as 

the ‘‘Las Cruces Bataan Memorial Clinic’’. 

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 ‘‘Las Cruces Bataan 

5 Memorial Clinic Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4969 IH

1 SEC. 2. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

2 COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC, 

3 LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO. 

4 The Department of Veterans Affairs community5 based outpatient clinic in Las Cruces, New Mexico, shall 

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 

7 designated as the ‘‘Las Cruces Bataan Memorial Clinic’’. 

8 Any reference to such clinic in any law, regulation, map, 

9 document, record, or other paper of the United States 

10 shall be considered to be a reference to the Las Cruces 

11 Bataan Memorial Clinic. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
### **[CHAPTER 68—REPEALED]**
#### Albert Heltz, Respondent, v. Buffalo Vegetable Marketing Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
429 P.2d 647

#### W. A. BOULDIN and Edward C. Green, Co-partners, d/b/a Hotel Shiprock, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Sun Insurance Company of New York, Plaintiff in Intervention-Appellant, v. BRUCE M. BERNARD, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 8228.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

July 10, 1967.

Smith & Ransom, L. A. McCulloch, Jr., Albuquerque, for appellants.

Shaffer, Butt & Bass, Turner W. Branch, Albuquerque, for appellee.

OPINION

HENSLEY, Jr., Chief Judge, Court of Appeals.

The threshold question is one of jurisdiction.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. The motion was argued on June 27, 1966, and at the conclusion of the hearing the trial court announced to counsel that the motion would be sustained. On July 1, 1966, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal. The transcript of record was filed in this Court on September 2, 1966. Thereafter, it was discovered that no written order sustaining the motion to dismiss had ever been entered. An order was prepared, signed by the trial judge, and filed with the clerk of the trial court on October 5, 1966. Certiorari for diminution of the record caused the order to be added to the transcript of the record here. No other notice of appeal has been filed.

Section 21-2-1(5) (1), N.M.S.A. 1953, also appearing as Rule 5, subd. 1, of the Supreme Court Rules, provides for appeals within thirty (30) days from the entry of any final judgment. This statute has been construed in Curbello v. Vaughn, 76 N.M. 687, 417 P.2d 881; State ex rel. Reynolds v. McLean, 74 N.M. 178, 392 P.2d 12; State v. Morris, 69 N.M. 89, 364 P.2d 348. In each case we held that appeals will lie only from a formal written order or judgment signed by the judge and filed in the case, or entered upon the records of the *189court and signed by the judge thereof. In the hope that the likelihood of a recurrence of this regrettable situation will be minimized, we would here again repeat, that an oral ruling by the trial judge is not a final judgment. It is merely evidence of what the court had decided to do — a decision that the trial court can change at any time before the entry of a final judgment.

The notice of appeal was prematurely filed and it was a nullity. The subsequent entry of a final order does not activate the notice of appeal so as to constitute compliance with § 21-2-1(5) (1), supra. See 3A Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure (Rules ed.) § 1553.

The appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

CHAVEZ, C. J., and NOBLE, MOISE and COMPTON, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


TO: Sub Surface Waste Management of Delaware, Inc.

As registered independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Sub Surface Waste Management of Delaware,
Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2003 of our report dated December 13, 2003
and contained in the Registration Statement No. 333-112562 of Sub Surface Waste
Management of Delaware, Inc. Form S-8 under the Securities Act of 1933 insofar
as such report relates to the financial statements of Sub Surface Waste
Management of Delaware, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2003.



                                  /s/ RUSSELL BEDFORD STEFANOU MIRCHANDANI LLP
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                      Russell Bedford Stefanou Mirchandani LLP



New York, New York
January 18, 2005
### §460xx–5. Report to Congress

No later than five years after November 18, 1988, and every ten years thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate, on the implementation of this subchapter. Such report shall include a detailed statement on the condition of the resources within the conservation area and of the progress of the Bureau of Land Management in achieving the purposes of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 100–696, title I, §106, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4573; Pub. L. 103–437, §6(d)(22), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4584.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–437 substituted "Natural Resources" for "Interior and Insular Affairs" after "Committee on".
LiDAR Drone Services, LLC

Pre­flight Checklist

A. Weather

a. Check weather to ensure safe operating conditions.

B. Location

a. Check for nearest airport

b. Notify property manager of arrival and daily expectations.

c. Check property and surrounding areas for radio towers, buildings, power lines,

and other obstructions.

d. Designate a safe takeoff and landing location.

e. Clean up all trash and debris from area

C. Radios

a. Remove from case.

b. Turn on radios.

c. Ensure radios are on proper aircraft model.

d. Ensure radios have proper battery voltage.

e. Ensure radios are transmitting on proper frequencies.

f. Ensure radio switches are all operational.

D. Ground stations

a. Remove from case.

b. Plug batteries into ground stations.

c. Check antennas on ground stations for serviceability.

d. Turn on ground stations.

e. Ensure ground stations are on proper receiving channels.

E. Aircraft

a. Remove aircraft from case.

b. Set up aircraft.

c. Check aircraft hardware for proper security.

d. Check aircraft components for proper security.

e. Check propellers for any indications of chips, cracks, or wear beyond safe

serviceability.

f. Check camera for full battery.

g. Check camera for SD card.

h. Check camera for clean lens

i. Check LiDAR

j. Secure camera and LiDAR in gimbal

k. Check flight battery for proper overall voltage and voltage of individual cells.
l. Check video transmitter battery for proper overall voltage and voltage of

individual cells.

m. Plug in batteries and let aircraft initialize.

n. Calibrate aircraft to location.

o. Ensure proper satellites acquired.

p. Ensure OSD is displaying all accurate information.

q. Turn on camera and LiDAR

r. Ensure operation of camera & LiDAR gimbal.

s. Ensure ground stations are receiving video signals from cameras.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6226

PRENTISS PICKENS EMMONS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-366-7)

Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Prentiss Pickens Emmons, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell

Theisen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Prentiss Pickens Emmons seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a habeas corpus 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 for claims addressed by

a district court 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 Emmons 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