alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7072 DANA S. GRAHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN OF THE AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-91-752) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dana S. Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order* denying Appellant's motion for relief from a judgment denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Graham v. Warden , No. CA-91-752 (E.D. Va. June 19, 1996). 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
#### RAKOWITZ et al. v. BERNHEIMER & SCHWARTZ BREWING CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Trial (§ 189*)—Question of Law or Fact—Direction of Verdict.

Where there was testimony from which the jury might have found in favor of plaintiffs, it was error to direct a verdict for defendant,

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 832, 333, 338-341, 365; Dec. Dig. § 139.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

Action by Samuel Rakowitz and another against Bernheimer & Schwartz Brewing Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.

Goldfein & Weltfisch, of New York City, for appellants.

Rose & Putzel, of New York City (Norman P. S. Schloss, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

*259PER CURIAM.

The only question raised at the trial of this case was as to whether or not one Applebaum, who was authorized to act for defendant, and with whom the plaintiffs claim an agreement- was made to pay the rent sued for, had power to make a lease binding on the defendant, and whether or not such a lease was made. Upon these questions testimony was given from which the jury might have found in favor of the plaintiffs. It was therefore error to direct a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event.
#### § 3560.607 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM HELMSTAR
GROUP,  INC.  AND  SUBSIDIARIES'  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AND  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT  OF  OPERATIONS  FOR THE YEAR PERIOD  ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         802,352
<SECURITIES>                                78,409,796
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         348,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                 242,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              81,818,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     72,750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       674,960
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,074,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,749,814
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,363,911
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,152,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             660,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,190,965
<INCOME-TAX>                                   501,735
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,689,230
<DISCONTINUED>                               (986,570)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,702,660
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31


</TABLE>
#### § 3560.210 Special note rents (SNRs).

When a Plan II housing project is experiencing severe vacancies due to market conditions, the Agency may allow the borrower to charge an SNR, which is less than note rent but higher than basic rent, to attract or retain tenants whose income level would require them to pay special note rent. The requirements for requesting and receiving an SNR are established under § 3560.454.
#### In the Matter of Thomas G. Walther, Petitioner, v James Melton, as Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles which revoked petitioner’s driver’s license pursuant to section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the commissioner is supported by substantial evidence on the record (see, e.g., *Snyder v Melton,*60 AD2d 575). Under the circumstances here, it was not an abuse of discretion for the examiner to have refused to grant an adjournment. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Lazer and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### § 29.90 When appeal may be taken.

Whenever an interested party believes that a certificate issued or a sample prepared under the act is not correct he may file an appeal: *Provided,* That (a) the period for which such certificate was issued or sample was prepared, if any specified, has not expired; (b) all tobacco covered by such certificate or sample is accessible to an appeal inspector for making a proper reinspection, resampling, or reweighing, and can be definitely identified by him as the tobacco covered by such certificate or sample; and (c) the tobacco has not deteriorated or undergone any material change.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE

COMPANY (U.S.), INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5479-MCR-EMT

BAY COUNTY HEALTH SYSTEM,

LLC d/b/a BAY MEDICAL CENTER

SACRED HEART HEALTH SYSTEM,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER OF STAY

This matter is before the Court on the parties’Joint Notice of Settlement. ECF

No. 34. The parties report that they parties have reached a settlement of this matter

and request 30 days in which to finalize the settlement documents. In consideration,

the Courtfindsit appropriate to stay thismatter pending finalization of the settlement. 

Accordingly, the proceedings in this matter are hereby STAYED for a period of 30

days. Upon completion of the settlement, the parties shall promptly file a stipulation

of dismissal or otherwise file a status report upon expiration of the period of stay. 

DONE and ORDERED on this 12th day of August 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05479-MCR-EMT Document 35 Filed 08/12/21 Page 1 of 1
# CI2021272EN.01002401.xml

| 8.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 272/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 272/24

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision of 23 April 2021 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2021 (2021/C 161 I/02)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 161 I of 3 May 2021
  )

(2021/C 272 I/02)

On page 2, the first indent:

for:

| ‘— | the Union’s budget for the financial year 2021 was definitively adopted on 17 March 2021 (2);’, |
| --- | --- |

‘—

the Union’s budget for the financial year 2021 was definitively adopted on 17 March 2021 (2);’,

read:

| ‘— | the Union’s budget for the financial year 2021 was definitively adopted on 18 December 2020 (2);’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

the Union’s budget for the financial year 2021 was definitively adopted on 18 December 2020 (2);’.

---
#### Owen Higney, Appellant, v. William L. Crow Construction Co., et al., Respondents.

—-Judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as to each defendant at the close of the case on the ground that no actionable negligence had been shown unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. Plaintiff made out a prima facie ease of common-law negligence against each defendant. Upon the proof adduced a jury might properly conclude that each of the defendants had failed in the duty owing plaintiff, to his injury. *(Harriman*v. *New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. Co.,*253 N. Y. 398; *Robinson*v. *Avella,*10 A D 2d 130). The testimony of plaintiff’s expert witness, moreover, that the acts of both defendants created the condition which caused the column to fall, was sufficient'to raise an issue of fact for the jury *(Reisner*v. *New York Kosher Provisions,*25 A D 2d 511). The issue of plaintiff’s contributory negligence, not commented upon by the trial court, was also one of fact for the jury. Concur — Steuer, J. P., Tilzer, Rabin and Witmer, JJ.
§ 3434.9 Recertification. ( a ) The recertification process for a HSACU remains the same as the process outlined in § 3434.6.
( b ) There is no limit to the number of times an institution may be recertified as a HSACU.
( c ) In the event an institution is not granted recertification due to noncompliance with reporting requirements for a HSACU program, the institution shall be notified in writing and given a period of 90 days from the date of notification to be in compliance.
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Kenneth Ruotolo, certify that: I have reviewed this annual report of ANTs software inc.;Based on my knowledge, this 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;Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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; andc. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; andThe small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.


Date: March 30, 2004

/s/ Kenneth RuotoloKenneth RuotoloChief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### James J. Barbour, appellant, v. Lammert and Mann Company, appellee.

Gen. No. 37,090.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 15, 1934.

James J. Barbour, *pro se.*Rothbart & Lewis, for appellee; Seymour M. Lewis, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.
What kind of
training do DCs
have?

Doctors of Chiropractic go to
college for at least two to
three years followed by
chiropractic training for four
years. They complete
classroom and clinical
training. They must pass a
state licensure exam to
practice. DCs are licensed in
all 50 states, in Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands and the
District of Columbia. DCs
can also specialize. This
requires an additional 2 to 3
years of training.

How can I get
chiropractic care?

Talk to your health care
provider. Some VA Medical
Centers will be offering
chiropractic care on station. If
you are being seen at one of
those VAMCs, your VA provider
can refer you to the DC.

If you are not at one of the
VAMCs offering chiropractic
care, your VA health care
provider may refer you for fee
basis authorization to see a DC
in your community.

If you are required to make
co-payments, the basic
co-payment will apply.

Department of Veterans Affairs
Veterans Health Administration
Office of Patient Care Services

IB 10-186 P96103



What is chiropractic
care?

Chiropractic is an approach to
health that focuses on the body
as a whole. Doctors of
Chiropractic (DCs) treat
conditions relating to bones and
joints, nerves and muscles.
DCs consider many factors that
can affect your health and
overall well-being such as your
work, your lifestyle and your
family history.

DCs use natural methods to
help the body heal. They do not
use drugs or surgery. They look
at the body’s structure and
function, focusing on the spine,
muscles and nerves.

They assess how these
systems are working together.
To find out what the problem is
and how to best treat it,

the doctor of chiropractic will:

* Take a medical history

* Do an exam, focusing especially
on nerves and bones

+ Assess your posture

* Order other tests if needed, such
as x-rays and other spine imaging

What is a chiropractic
adjustment?

Chiropractic’s primary treatment
method is called an adjustment or
manipulation.

DCs use their hands or equipment to
apply a short quick thrust to a joint or
joints. The thrust is carefully
administered with the intent of
improving joint and nerve function,

reducing pain and speeding recovery.

It may be used with other forms of
treatment, depending on your
specific needs.

How can chiropractic
care help me?

Chiropractic health care is widely
used for back pain and its related
disorders. Patients also go toa
DC for:
* Neck pain
* Pain from an accident or injury
* Muscle spasms
* Headaches related to tension
or strain
* Sciatica (pain in the lower
back, hip, thigh or down the
back of the leg)
+ Pinched nerve
* Other problems related to
spine, muscle and bones

DCs will focus on your body’s
ability to heal by giving you
advice on how to better manage
the factors that you have some
control over such as stress, diet
and exercise. They may also
give you a consult or referral to
another health care provider.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-60044

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

JANET S THORNTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GORDON WALKER, Dr, individually and

officially; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

HATTIESBURG PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT,

officially; THE HATTIESBURG PUBLIC SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:94-CV-278-PG)

September 5, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Janet S. Thornton appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of defendants Gordon Walker, the Board of
-2-

Trustees of the Hattiesburg Public School District, and the

Hattiesburg Public School District in her action under Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et

seq., alleging sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and

retaliation. We agree with the district court that Thornton has

failed to produce any evidence, either direct or indirect, from

which a jury could reasonably infer that defendants’ actions were

motivated by sexually discriminatory animus or that Thornton was

sexually harassed. Furthermore, Thornton has produced no summary

judgment evidence of a causal link between any adverse employment

action against her and activity protected under Title VII. See

Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 708 (5th Cir. 1997)

(holding that threats of termination are not “adverse employment

actions” for purposes of Title VII), petition for cert. filed, 66

USLW 3108 (Jul. 21, 1997) (No. 97-126). Therefore, we AFFIRM for

the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion.
EXHIBIT 13.2

            SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                          SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection with the annual report of Widescope Resources Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  20-F  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2006 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Edward
D. Ford,  Director and acting Chief Accounting 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 containing the financial statements of the Company fully complies
with  the  requirements  of  section  13(a)  or  15(d),  as  applicable,  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: June 27, 2007


/s/ Edward D. Ford
---------------------------------
Edward D. Ford
Director and acting Chief Accounting Officer

* 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.
CNET Networks, Inc. Director Compensation Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.10 
  
 CNET Networks, Inc. 
 Director Compensation Plan 
  
 Adopted by the Board of Directors 
 June 10, 2003 
  
 Plan Objective 
  
 The CNET Networks, Inc. Director Compensation Plan 2003 Incentive Plan is designed to attract and retain board members who possess the highest qualifications, integrity
and independence and to compensate them appropriately for their services. 
  
 Eligibility 
  
 The Plan is available to members of the
CNET Networks Board of Directors who are not employees of the Company. 
  
 Effective Date of the Plan 
  
 The Plan is in effect for
meetings after June 10, 2003 and shall remain in effect until repealed by the Board of Directors and supercedes any prior plan. 
  
 Plan Administration  
  
 The Governance Committee is responsible for administering the Plan in its sole discretion and judgment. 
  
 Annual Cash Retainer  
  
 Each member of the Board of Directors shall receive an annual retainer of $12,000 payable in cash in equal installments on a quarterly basis within thirty days following
the end of the quarter. Payments shall be pro-rated to reflect service for periods of less than a full quarter. In the event of a director’s resignation or removal, a pro rated payment shall be made within thirty days of termination of service.

  
 The Chair of the Audit Committee shall receive an annual retainer of $5,000
and the Chair of each other committee shall receive an annual retainer of $2,500, payable in the same manner as the board retainer. 
  
 Meeting Fees 
  
 Each member of the Board of Directors and of each committee shall receive a fee equal to $2,500 for each board or committee meeting attended in person and $500 for each meeting attended by telephone, provided that no
fees shall be paid with respect to committee meetings held on the same day as board meetings. Meeting fees shall be paid within thirty days of the end of each quarter for all meetings held during the quarter. 







 Option Grants 
  
 Each director shall be entitled to an annual option grant in the amount of 15,000 shares. The grant shall be made in conjunction with the annual company-wide grant to all
employees pursuant to the same form of agreement used for director grants prior to the adoption of this Plan. 
  
 In addition, upon joining the board, a member shall be entitled to receive an option grant in the amount of 40,000 options pursuant to the same form of agreement used for director grants prior to the adoption of this
Plan. 
  
 If there are changes to the accounting treatment of options or to the
form of equity compensation applicable to employees of the company in general, the Board of Directors will review the continued appropriateness of these option grants and will consider alternatives. 
  

 2