alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
Allopinions are subjecttomodificationandtechnical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or ConnecticutAppellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears onthe Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service andinthe ConnecticutLawJournal andboundvolumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State ofConnecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************ROBERT M. BLOCH v. BARBARA

CALLAGHAN ET AL. (AC 38100)

Alvord, Sheldon and Prescott, Js. Argued October 24—officially released December 13, 2016 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New

Haven, B. Fischer, J.)

Robert M. Bloch, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).Opinion
PER CURIAM. On October 24, 2014, the plaintiff, Robert M. Bloch, filed this action sounding in tort against Barbara Callaghan and against two attorneys who the plaintiffclaimed had represented her, Gregory Bachand and Frank Lieto. On December 1, 2014, Bachand moved that the action be dismissed as to him for lack of personal jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) the plaintiff did not post a recognizance bond, as requiredbyGeneralStatutes § 52-185andPracticeBook § 8-3, and (2) the plaintiff did not serve him in hand or at his place of abode, as required by General Statutes § 52-54.

The trial court held a hearing on Bachand’s motion

onApril 27, 2015. By order datedMay 6, 2015, the court grantedthemotionto dismiss onthe groundthat ‘‘there

was insufficient service of process upon him.’’ In his brief to this court, the plaintiff fails to challenge the basis upon which the trial court dismissed his claim against Bachand. Instead, the plaintiff argues that his claim against Bachand shouldnot have been dismissed

on the basis of his failure to provide a recognizance. Even if the plaintiff is correct in this regard, we can providehimnoreliefbecause hehasfailedto challenge the trial court’s stated basis for dismissing his claim, namely, hisfailuretoproperlyserveBachand. Hisclaim is therefore moot. See In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 556–57, 979 A.2d 469 (2009).

The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 10.41
December 6, 2005

Temecula Valley Bancorp Inc.
27710 Jefferson Avenue, Suite A100
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention: Board of Directors

                           Re: Indemnity to Cover Reissue of Lost Certificates

Gentlemen:

The undersigned INDEMNITORS, individually and collectively hereby agree to
indemnify, defend, and hold Temecula Valley Bancorp Inc., and its directors,
officers and agents ("INDEMNITEES", and individually, "INDEMNITEE") harmless
against and from any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, expenses,
obligations, actions, liabilities or damages, including interest and attorneys'
fees INDEMNITEES may incur or suffer, which arise, result from, or relate to the
issuance a new certificate or certificates without indemnity bond with respect
to two allegedly lost common stock certificates as follows: 1) Certificate No.
TVB5824 for 5344 shares registered in the name of Steven W. Aichle, Inc. Profit
Sharing Plan; and 2) Certificate No. TVB5823 for 66900 shares registered in the
name of Steven W. Aichle & Colleen A. Aichle, Trustees of the Aichle 1996 Family
Trust.

An INDEMNITEE shall give INDEMNITORS written notice of the claim or threatened
claim by mail, return receipt requested, or by a reliable overnight service,
which is indemnified hereby within a reasonable time after receipt of a claim or
threat of such a claim or an offer or proposal to settle an indemnified claim.
INDEMNITORS jointly and severally agree to promptly pay any claim or settlement
thereof of which it got notice from an INDEMNITEE, or any ensuing judgment
thereon, together with all legal expenses connected with any indemnification
claim and the defense or resolution thereof.

INDEMNITORS:

THE AICHLE 1996 FAMILY TRUST


By: /s/ Steven W. Aichle
    ----------------------------
    Steven W. Aichle, Trustee

By: /s/ Colleen. Aichle
    ----------------------------
    Colleen Aichle, Trustee

STEVEN W. AICHLE INC. PROFIT
         SHARING PLAN


By: /s/ Steven W. Aichle
    ---------------------------
     Steven W. Aichle, Trustee

By: /s/ Colleen. Aichle
    ----------------------------
    Colleen Aichle, Trustee


/s/ Steven W. Aichle
--------------------------------
Steven W. Aichle, an individual


/s/ Colleen. Aichle
--------------------------------
Colleen Aichle, an individual
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2457-2458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00356]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-765]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Organix, 
Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Organix, Inc. has applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 15, 2021. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before March 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on September 22, 2020, Organix, Inc., 240 Salem Street, 
Woburn, Massachusetts 01801, applied to be registered as an bulk 
manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled 
substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Controlled substance               Drug code       Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid................            2010  I
Lysergic acid diethylamide...............            7315  I
Marihuana................................            7360  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols....................            7370  I
5-Methoxy-N-N-dimethyltryptamine.........            7431  I
Bufotenine...............................            7433  I
Dimethyltryptamine.......................            7435  I
Psilocybin...............................            7437  I
Psilocyn.................................            7438  I
Heroin...................................            9200  I

[[Page 2458]]

 
Morphine.................................            9300  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to synthesize the above listed control substances 
for distribution to its customers. In reference to drug codes 7360 
(Marihuana) and 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinol), the company plans to bulk 
manufacture these drugs as synthetics. No other activity for these drug 
codes are authorized for this registration.

William T. McDermott,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-00356 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 13.1







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 Annual Report of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”).  I, David Wolfin, Principal 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, 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 results of operations of the Company.







Date: July 7, 2011
By:
/s/ David WolfinDavid Wolfin, Principal Executive Officer
### §2272a. Funds for incidental expenses and promotional items relating to volunteers

On and after August 6, 1996, funds appropriated to the Department of Agriculture may be used for incidental expenses such as transportation, uniforms, lodging, and subsistence for volunteers serving under the authority of section 2272 of this title, when such volunteers are engaged in the work of the United States Department of Agriculture; and for promotional items of nominal value relating to the United States Department of Agriculture Volunteer Programs.

(Pub. L. 104–180, title VII, §729, Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1600.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2272a, Pub. L. 102–142, title VII, §739, Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 915, authorized use of funds for incidental expenses and promotional items relating to volunteers on and after Oct. 28, 1991, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–127, title III, §336(f)(2), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1007.
# Title I Grants to LEAs

# SIG

# Impact Aid 

# Improving Teacher Quality

# 21st Century 

# English Learners Education

# IDEA Part B

# Voc Rehab

# CTE State Grants

# Adult ED State Grants

# SEOG

# Federal Work Study
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TERELL K. TILLMAN
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3044

[ December 12, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2017

- CF

006189

- AXXX

- MB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Wes t Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C.J., M AY and F ORST
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
|   | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010 (the “Report”) 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/ OLEG KHAYKIN |
|--------|--------|------------------|

|   |   |  Oleg KhaykinChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00289-CR

Samuel V. Harris, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-08-898, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Samuel V. Harris seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for aggravated robbery. 

The trial court has certified that: (1) this is a plea bargain case and Harris has no right of appeal, and

(2) Harris waived the right of appeal. The appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 13, 2010

Do Not Publish
§ 776.94 Relations with Non-USG Counsel. ( a ) This part applies to non-USG attorneys representing individuals in any matter for which the JAG is charged with supervising the provision of legal services, including but not limited to, courts-martial, administrative separation boards or hearings, boards of inquiry, and disability evaluation proceedings. Employment of a non-USG attorney by an individual client does not alter the responsibilities of a covered USG attorney to that client. Although a non-USG attorney is individually responsible for adhering to the contents of this part, the covered USG attorney detailed or otherwise assigned to that client shall take reasonable steps to inform the non-USG attorney: ( 1 ) Of the contents of this part;
( 2 ) That subpart B of this part apply to civilian counsel practicing before military tribunals, courts, boards, or in any legal matter under the supervision of the JAG as a condition of such practice; and
( 3 ) That subpart B of this part take precedence over other rules of professional conduct that might otherwise apply, but that the attorney may still be subject to rules and discipline established by the attorney's Federal, state, or local bar association or other licensing authority.
( b ) If an individual client designates a non-USG attorney as chief counsel, the detailed USG attorney must defer to civilian counsel in any conflict over trial tactics. If, however, the attorneys have “co-counsel” status, then conflict in proposed trial tactics requires the client to be consulted to resolve the conflict.
( c ) If the non-USG attorney has, in the opinion of the involved covered USG attorney, acted or failed to act in a manner which is contrary to subpart B of this part, the matter should be brought to the attention of the civilian attorney. If the matter is not resolved with the civilian counsel, the covered USG attorney should discuss the situation with the supervisory attorney. If not resolved between counsel, the client must be informed of the matter by the covered USG attorney. If, after being apprised of possible misconduct, the client approves of the questioned conduct, the covered USG attorney shall attempt to withdraw from the case in accordance with § 776.35 of this part. The client shall be informed of such intent to withdraw prior to action by the covered USG attorney.
#### In the Matter of Eugene G. Lutz, as Guardian ad Litem of Charles Lutz, an Infant, Appellant, against Joseph Van Valkenburgh, Respondent.

Motion for a stay of trial pending appeal denied, without costs. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark E. Wilson, Chief Accounting Officer of EXCO
Resources, Inc., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of EXCO Resources, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this annual 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.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                        
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: March 3, 2010 |  | /s/ MARK E. WILSON                     
|                    |  | Mark E. Wilson Chief
Accounting Officer
### §473c–1. Offenses in relation to sampling of cotton for classification

It shall be unlawful—

(a) for any person sampling cotton for classification under this chapter knowingly to sample cotton improperly, or to identify cotton samples improperly, or to accept money or other consideration, directly or indirectly, for any neglect or improper performance of duty as a sampler;

(b) for any person to influence improperly or to attempt to influence improperly or to forcibly assault, resist, impede, or interfere with any sampler in the taking of samples for classification under this chapter;

(c) for any person knowingly to alter or cause to be altered a sample taken for classification under this chapter by any means such as trimming, peeling, or dressing the sample, or by removing any leaf, trash, dust, or other material from the sample for the purpose of misrepresenting the actual quality of the bale from which the sample was taken;

(d) for any person knowingly to cause, or attempt to cause, the issuance of a false or misleading certificate or memorandum of classification under this chapter by deceptive baling, handling, or sampling of cotton, or by any other means, or by submitting samples of such cotton for classification knowing that the cotton has been so baled, handled, or sampled;

(e) for any person knowingly to submit more than one sample from the same bale of cotton for classification under this chapter, except a second sample submitted for review classification;

(f) for any person knowingly to operate or adjust a mechanical cotton sampler in such a manner that a representative sample is not drawn from each bale; and

(g) for any person knowingly to violate any regulation of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to the sampling of cotton made pursuant to section 473c of this title.

(Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 337, §3c–1, as added Pub. L. 86–588, July 5, 1960, 74 Stat. 328.)
#### § 935.14 Autopsies.

The medical officer on Wake Island, or any other qualified person under his supervision, may perform autopsies upon authorization of the Commander or a Judge of the Wake Island Court.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

'"RiRTMENTOF 

;/:.iF^P0RW10N ^ 

w^:t OPERATiONS 

; -^P ?M P 3- Ob 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive 

Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and 

Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

DOT-OST-1995-272 

formerly 

Docket 49233 

STATUS REPORT 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: September 24, 2010. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Samuel Podberesky 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Dayton Lehman, Jr. 

Deputy Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

William J. Wagner i 

Senior Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7152 
Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 

I hereby certify that on this 24th day of September, 2010, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: 

Original 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

By Personal Service 

The Honorable Ronnie A Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

By First Class Mail 

Scot Spencer 

SBD Aircraft Services 

255 S Leland Norton Way 

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408