alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 

**- 8243** 

STEVEN LEWIS BARNES ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

GEORGE DEDMONDT ; BRAI N WILLIAMS; SHADELL STEVENS; MARCUS SMITH; POLLY HALL; A. DELL DOBEY; HEIDI PRESSLEY; RANDY DOR AN; LT. KARREN JAGGERS, official and individual capacity ,
Defendants

– Appellees,

and

BRENDA B. CARPENTER,

Defendant

.

**No. 10** 
**- 6113** 

STEVEN LEWIS BARNES ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

GEORGE DEDMONDT; BRAIN WILLIAMS; SHADELL STEVENS; MA RCUS SMITH; POLLY HALL; A. DELL DOBEY; HEIDI PRESSLEY; RANDY DORAN; LT. KARREN JAGGERS, official and individual capacity ,
Defendants

– Appellees,

and2 BRENDA B. CARPENTER; O

- LEE STURKEY,

Defendants.

Appeal s from the United States District C ourt for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Margaret B . Seymour , District Judge. ( 4:08

- cv

- 00002

- MBS )

Submitted : September 8, 2010 Decided: September 22 , 2010

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published p er curiam opinion

.

Steven Lewis Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER C URIAM:

Steven Lewis Barnes appeals the district court ’ s

order s adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying

reconsideration. Barnes also challenges several pretrial orders

denying ap pointment of counsel, denying extensions of time for

discovery and to object to the report and recommendation, and

denying recusal of the magistrate judge . We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons s tated by the district court. Barnes v. Dedmondt ,

No. 4:08

- cv

- 00002

- MBS (D.S.C. Sept. 29 & Dec. 10, 2009) . 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.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cornelius Lucas, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing and for assignment of counsel on appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 27, 1967, which denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. Motion denied. The order is not appealable (Code Crim. Pro.. § 517). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### §§ 1970.19-1970.50 [Reserved]
Docket No: FAA-2015-0490 Dir ID: 2014-NM-018-AD
#### [The State ex rel.] Smith, Appellant, *v.*Sage, Judge, Appellee, et al.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Smith v. Sage*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 209.]

(No. 98-657

Submitted June 24, 1998

Decided September 23, 1998.)

*Rickey Smith, pro se.*

*John F. Holcomb,*Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Daniel G. Eichel,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the following reasons.

First, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2, 146 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 7136, does not apply to persons convicted and sentenced prior to July 1, 1996, and the court of appeals properly refused to retroactively apply the sentencing provisions of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 to Smith. *State ex rel. Maynard v. Corrigan*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 332, 333, 691 N.E.2d 280, 281; *State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349.

Second, former R.C. 5145.02 created no legal duty on the part of either Judge Sage or the APA to release Smith before the expiration of his sentence. See *210
      *State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.*(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 687 N.E.2d 283, 284. See, also, *State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson*(1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 490, 633 N.E.2d 1128, 1130 (“Ohio law gives a convicted person no legitimate claim of entitlement to parole prior to the expiration of a valid sentence of imprisonment.”). As the court of appeals correctly held, Judge Sage has no duty to hold a hearing to determine whether Smith should be paroled.

Finally, Smith’s argument on appeal that Am.Sub.H.B. No. 300, 136 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2311, 2394-2395, supports his entitlement to the writ lacks merit. *Maynard,*81 Ohio St.3d at 333, 691 N.E.2d at 281.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Chardan South China Acquisition
      Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007
      (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, Dr. Richard D. Propper, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of
      the
      Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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 result of operations of the
        Company.
  /s/
                  Richard D. Propper
              
              Dated:November
                  16, 2007Dr.
                  Richard D. PropperChief
                  Financial Officer(Principal
                  Accounting and Financial
                  Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.1
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Beverly L. Brown, Robert K. Kretzman, Lawrence
E. Kreider and Joram C. Salig or any of them, each acting alone, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and
his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the
THE COSMETIC CENTER, INC. (the "Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 27, 1997 (the "Form 10-K") under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the
Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the
Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract,
document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities
self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, 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 in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,
or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 13
day of February, 1998.

                              /s/ JERRY W. LEVIN
                              --------------------------
                              JERRY W. LEVIN
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-1155V

Filed: March 9, 2015

Not for Publication

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

AMY JUNKER *

*

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* TDaP; Shoulder Injury Related to

v. * Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”);

* Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mark Theodore Sadaka, Englewood, N.J., for petitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On November 26, 2014, Amy Junker filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,

2 [the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. The petition alleges that as a result of a TentanusDiphtheria-acelluar Pertussis vaccine (“TDaP”) vaccination on December 7, 2011,

petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Petition at 1. The 

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 7, 2015, respondent filed a status report in which she concedes that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Status report (ECF No. 13) at 1. 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be 

posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2006).

 
Specifically, respondent submits “petitioner’s injury is consistent with a shoulder injury 

related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petitioner has met the statutory 

requirements by suffering the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. 

Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all the legal 

prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation.

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T PA SCU A L A O U I LI N O G A Y O SO BE RNAL, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73406 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 538- 013 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** S an F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P a s c ua l A oul i no G ay os o- B e rna l , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons p r o s e f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ' (“B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is



# FI LED JU N 04 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSm o t i o n t o reo p en h i s rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s. O u r j u ri sd i ct i o n i s g o v ern edb y 8

U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We d e n yi n p artan dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r ’s m o tio n to r e ope n t o appl yf

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l orr e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e a s unt i m e l ybe c aus e he di d notf i l e the m ot i on w i thi n 90 day s of th e B I A 's f

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l, se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , h e f a ile dto de m ons tr a t e m a t e r i a l c hange d c i r c um s t anc e s i n M e xi c o t o qua l i f yf orthe r e g u la to rye x c e p tio n to th e tim e lim it, se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) , an dh e d id no tes t abl i sh pri m a f

ac i e e l i gi bi l i ty f

or re l i ef , se e T ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 9 8 8 , 9 9 6 - 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( r e q u ir in g m o v an t to e s tab lis h p r im af a c ie e lig ib ility for r el i ef ); se e al so D el ga do -O rt i

z v . H older , 600 F . 3d 1148, 1152 ( 9th C i r . 2010) (hol di ng thatM exi can al i ens r eturni ng ho m e f rom the U ni t ed S t at es di d n otqu al i fy a s ac o g n iz ab le s o c ia l g r o up f o rp u rp o s e s o f

a s y lu m o rw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ' s June 7, 2005, or de rdi s m i s s i ng p e titio n e r ’s d ir e c t ap p e a l f r o m an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e 's d e c is io n d e n y in g h is appl i c a t i on f

orc anc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l be c aus e thi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i s not tim e lya s to th a t o r d e r . Se e S i n gh v . I NS , 31 5 F . 3d 11 86 , 11 88 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, Lewis Moorehead, Chief Financial Officer of Intelligentias, Inc. (the Company), certify that:

(1)

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007 (the Report);



(2)

Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order 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; and



(3)

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods represented in the Report.



(4)

The Companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the Report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this Report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



(5)

The Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and to the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):



(i)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(ii)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.



Dated:  August 20, 2007



By:

/s/ LEWIS W. MOOREHEAD

Lewis W. Moorehead

Chief Financial Officer
Reaction  ‐ Sanitized
§ 1730.3 RUS addresses. ( a ) Persons wishing to obtain forms referred to in this part should contact: Program Support and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1522, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522, telephone (202) 720-8674. Borrowers or others may reproduce any of these forms in any number required.
( b ) Documents required to be submitted to RUS under this part are to be sent to the office of the borrower's assigned RUS General Field Representative (GFR) or such other office as designated by RUS.
MEDIATION REFERRALS

2006-0910.

#### State ex rel. PFC Lamont Hill Memorial v. Petro.

In Mandamus.

The following case has been referred to mediation pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6):
```

[108th Congress Public Law 299]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ299.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 1100]]

Public Law 108-299
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To modify certain deadlines pertaining to machine-readable, tamper-
   resistant entry and exit documents. <<NOTE: Aug. 9, 2004 -  [H.R. 
                                4417]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN DEADLINES FOR MACHINE-READABLE, 
            TAMPER-RESISTANT ENTRY AND EXIT DOCUMENTS.

    Section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform 
Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1732) is amended, in each of subsections 
(b)(2)(A), (c)(1), and (c)(2), by striking ``2004,'' and inserting 
``2005,''.

    Approved August 9, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4417:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
                                                        Vol. 150 (2004):
            June 14, considered and passed House.
            July 22, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28611]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Kootenai National 
Forest's Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on 
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 at 6 p.m. at the Forest Supervisor's Office 
in Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the 
public.

DATES: December 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Forest Supervisor's Office, 31374 U.S. Hwy. 2, Libby, 
Montana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janette Turk, Committee Coordinator, 
Kootenai National Forest at (406) 283-7764, or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#19736d6c6b72597f6a377f7c7d376c6a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="244e5051564f6442570a4241400a5157">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda will include voting to fund projects 
for 2010. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be 
posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake based in 
Kalispell, Montana.

    Dated: November 8, 2010.
Paul Bradford,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-28611 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1951.210 Environmental requirements.

Servicing actions as defined in § 1970.6 of this chapter are part of the financial assistance already provided and do not require additional NEPA review. Actions such as lien subordinations, sale or lease of Agency-owned real property, or approval of a substantial change in the scope of a project, as defined in § 1970.8, must comply with the environmental review requirements in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970.

[81 FR 11032, Mar. 2, 2016]
§ 1782.12 Sale or exchange of security property. A cash sale of all or a portion of a borrower's assets or an exchange of security property may be approved subject to the conditions set forth in this section. ( a ) *Approval conditions.* Approval may be given when the servicing official determines that: ( 1 ) The consideration is for the full amount of the debt or the present fair market value as determined by an appraisal completed by a qualified Rural Development employee or an independent appraiser as determined appropriate by the approval official;
( 2 ) The sale or exchange will not prevent carrying out the purpose of the loan;
( 3 ) The remaining property is adequate security for the loan and the transaction will not adversely affect the Agency's security position;
( 4 ) If the property to be sold or exchanged will be used for similar purposes that the loan was made, the purchaser will: ( i ) Execute Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” The instrument of conveyance will contain the civil rights covenant referenced in 7 CFR 1901.202(e); and
( ii ) Provide the Agency with a written agreement assuming all rights and obligations of the original borrower, and
( 5 ) Proceeds remaining after paying any reasonable and necessary selling expenses are to be used for one or more of the following purposes: ( i ) To pay Agency debt, pay on debts secured by a prior lien, and pay on debts secured by a parity or subsequent lien if it is to the Agency's advantage;
( ii ) To purchase or acquire property more suited to the borrower's needs, providing the Agency's security position is maintained; and
( iii ) To develop or enlarge the facility if necessary to improve the borrower's debt-paying ability, place the operation on a sounder financial basis, or further the loan objectives and purposes.
( b ) *Sale of assets financed with Agency grants.* The requirements for the sale or disposition of assets financed with Agency grants are determined by the terms of the grant agreement, 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019, and E.O. 12803, as applicable.
( c ) *Release from liability.* If a borrower can no longer meet the objectives of the loan, the property may be sold. If the full amount of the borrower's debt is paid or assumed, the State Director may release the borrower from liability.