alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7080

FREDERICK BURNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CECIL UNDERWOOD, Governor; SANDRA MCCORMICK ILDERTON, Chairperson, West Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-99-345-5) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Burns, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Frederick Burns, a West Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Burns v. Underwood , No. CA-99-345-5 (S.D.W. Va. July 22, 1999). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 357

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 357 appear at 70 FR 57431, Sept. 30, 2005.

#### § 357.40 Additional requirements.

In any case or any class of cases arising under these regulations, the Secretary of the Treasury (“Secretary”) may require such additional evidence and a bond of indemnity, with or without surety, as may in the judgment of the Secretary be necessary for the protection of the interests of the United States.
#### § 553.300 Applicability of definitions.

The definitions in this subpart apply throughout the entire part.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Avanir Pharmaceuticals;2.
    
    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;3.
    
    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 registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrant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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Dated: August 8, 2008
    
    /s/ Keith A. KatkinKeith A. KatkinPresident and Chief Executive Officer[Principal Executive Officer]
#### § 547.304 Entity.

The term *entity* means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 15, 2009, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received. A permit was issued on August 24, 2009 to: Charles D. Amsler, Jr., Permit No. 2010-007.                

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-20734 Filed 8-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2014

Nos. 04-13-00242-CR & 04-13-00243-CR

James Michael CHIN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2012CR5328 & 2011CR7140

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard L. SIMS.

No. 65147.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 16, 1979.

In re Richard L. Sims, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and for stay order. Parish of Caddo. No. 111,550.

Writ granted. There not being probable cause to charge the relator, the trial judge is ordered to release him from custody or bail.
HomeUnited Nations Status Lists...Charter of the United Nations, done at San Francisco June 26, 1945

# 									Charter of the United Nations, done at San Francisco June 26, 1945							

Depositary – Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Entered into force October 24, 1945.

In accordance with Article 110, the Charter entered into force on 24 October 1945, after ratification by the five permanent members of the Security Council and a majority of the other countries. Twenty-two countries subsequently deposited their instruments of ratification.

Czechoslovakia was an orginal signing member of the Charter. Signed June 26, 1946, deposited their notice of ratification October 19, 1945 and entered into force October 24, 1945. On January 19, 1993 both the Czech Republic and Slovakia deposited their declarations of acceptance to the Charter of the United Nations.

For a list of states that were admitted to the United Nations following the enter into force date of the the Charter see United Nations website.
Download Status List						 [191 KB]

Tags

MultilateralTreatiesUnited Nations

Back to Top
#### Thomas Wellon LASSITER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-321.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Ww

Information

Newark Slough Trail
Crescent Trail

No Name Trail

N
0.5

Es

San Francisco Bay

aR
wR] Se

1 Don Edwards Refuge Boundary

Salt Ponds

oe Kilometers

1

EEE Miles
0

0.5

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Don Edwards

aS
San Francisco Bay \ ee
National Wildlife Refuge

Apr-Oct 7 a.m. - 8 p.m. @ Nov-Mar 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. @ 510-792-0222

ened aiped oesed



, us to Coyote Hills
\\_ Regional Park

i,
" OE
Hy, \ yt"
2 S
ny .
% wt
a
‘ .
‘
%
Information
Tidelands Trail

Newark Slough Trail

Quarry Trail

LaRiviere Marsh Trail

Harrier Spur Trail

Don Edwards
San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge

Apr-Oct 7 a.m. - 8 p.m. @ Nov-Mar 7 a.m. -6 p.m. @ 510-792-0222

LaRiviere Marsh

Hilltop Overlook

Salt Pond
at
ay

| =i Kilometers
/}-0----0.05 ---0.1

5 Miles:
f=0 0.05 0.1
Exhibit 32.1



DIVALL INCOME PROPERTIES 3 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP



Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Divall Income Properties 3 Limited Partnership (the Company) certifies
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  | THE PROVO GROUP, INC., General Partner
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: November 14, 2003 |  |  |  | By                                    
|                         |  |  |  |                                       
|                         |  |  |  |                                       



This certification is
made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
#### Hendrickson *v.*Contracting & Material Co.

[No. 20,314.

Filed January 11, 1966.]

*194*Norman R. Newman,*and *Dann, Backer & Pecar,*of Indianapolis, *Richard W. Guthrie,*and *Murray, Stewart, Irwin & Gilliom,*of Indianapolis, for appellee.

Carson, J.

This is an appeal from an award from the full Industrial Board of Indiana affirming an award of the hearing member. The claim was originally filed on form 9 and the application for review on form 16. Following the affirmance by the full board, the appellant filed his bill of exceptions containing the evidence which was signed by the chairman of the board and thereafter filed as part of this appeal.

From the ruling of the full board the appellant assigns as error that the award of the full board was contrary to law. This assignment presents the entire case for our consideration.

The evidence presented to the board consisted of testimony of three witnesses, the appellant, plaintiff below, Dr. Everett G. Grantham by deposition and Les Johnson a steward on the job where the appellant was employed. The appellee offered no evidence.

This being an appeal from a negative finding of the Industrial Board an assignment that the award of the board was contrary to law requires us to consider only the evidence most favorable to the appellee. *Rauh & Sons Fertilizer Co. v. Adkins, et al.*(1955), 126 Ind. App. 251, 129 N. E. 2d 358.

*195The question upon which the case turned below is whether or not from the evidence the condition complained of by the appellant was the result of accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The finding of the hearing member which was affirmed by the full board was in substance that the plaintiff did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and that any impairment or disability which he might have at the present time or will have in the future is wholly unrelated to his employment.

The Industrial Board as the trier of the facts had the right to believe that evidence which it finds creditable and by the same token the right to disbelieve such evidence as it does not find worthy. The board apparently did not feel that this case came within the principles heretofore announced by this court in the cases of *Standard Cabinet Co.*v. *Landgrave*(1921), 76 Ind. App. 593, 595, 596, 132 N. E. 661 and *American Maize Products*v. *Nichiporchik*(1940), 108 Ind. App. 502, 510, 511, 29 N. E. 2d 801. The evidence having been considered by the full board in a hearing *de novo*and the board having an opportunity to weigh the evidence and apply the law to the facts before it, reached a decision adverse to the claimant, we conclude that the decision of the full Industrial Board should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Prime, C. J., Wickens and Faulconer, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 212 N. E. 2d 903.
Order filed November 9, 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00430

- CV

____________ In the Interest of L.A.V. and S.H.V., children

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20 19

- 03748J



### ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a decree of termination in a parental
termination case. The notice of appeal was filed July 27, 2021

. The reporter’s record was due
within 10 days after th e notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). The record has not been filed. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is
filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). The tr ial and appellate courts are jointlyresponsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App.

P. 35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commenc e the preparation of the reporter’s record and must a rrange for a substitute reporter, if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely in this accelerated appeal, we issue the following order:

We ord er Jill Bartek , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal on or before November 18, 2021

. If Jill Bartek does not timely file the record as ordered, the court will iss ue an order requiring her to appear at a heari ng to show cause why the record has not been timely filed and why she should not be held in contempt of court for failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or confine ment in jail.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of C hief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
40547.

#### PALMER v. THE STATE.

Decided February 11, 1964.

*Charlton E. Clark,*for plaintiff in error.

*Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor, Robert E. Barker,*contra.

Hall, Judge.

The evidence was without dispute that a police officer of the City of Savannah heard a sound like metal scraping against metal; that he got to the location of the defendant’s automobile a few seconds later; that upon his arrival the car was at rest against a building, demolished, and the defendant was getting out of the right front seat; that the left front door of the car was against the building which the car had struck and the defendant could not have gotten out through that door; that there was nobody else in the car; that the defendant admitted he had been driving but the officer did not see him drive the car; that at the time the officer arrested him and charged him with driving under the influence, the defendant appeared to be very much under the influence to such an extent that in the officer’s opinion it was less safe for him to drive a car than it would have been had he not been so affected; that the officer had never seen the defendant drive a car drunk or sober; and that the defendant did not admit to the officer that he had been driving the car while under the influence of liquor.

The defendant concedes that the evidence supports a finding that he was operating the vehicle and that he was under the influence of liquor when arrested but argues that there is no *114evidence that he was intoxicated or operating the vehicle at the time the car was wrecked. In a few cases this court has reversed convictions because no witness saw the defendant operating the vehicle and the evidence was held insufficient to show that the defendant was intoxicated and operating the vehicle at the same time. In *Ray v. State,*91 Ga. App. 16 (84 SE2d 591), it did not appear how long it was after the collision before anyone arrived on the scene and observed the defendant under the influence of alcohol. In *Gunder v. State,*95 Ga. App. 176 (97 SE2d 381), there was “no evidence as to how much time had elapsed between the time of the collision and the time the officers received a report concerning it.” In *Hitchcock v. State,*96 Ga. App. 18 (99 SE2d 175), about an hour elapsed between the collision and the time the officers observed the defendant in the hospital. In the present case, however, the evidence was that the officer arrived at the scene within a few seconds of the accident, and was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant was operating the vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the accident. *Hinson v. State,*88 Ga. App. 318 (77 SE2d 63); *Flournoy v. State,*106 Ga. App. 756 (128 SE2d 528); *Echols v. State,*104 Ga. App. 695 (122 SE2d 473); *Horne v. State,*105 Ga. App. 214 (124 SE2d 319).

The trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
§ 28.545 Pre-employment inquiries. ( a ) *Marital status.* A recipient shall not make pre-employment inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for employment, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.”
( b ) *Sex.* A recipient may make pre-employment inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for employment, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
Home2022 Treaties and Agreements...Canada (22-1221.1) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Cooperation on the Civil Lunar Gateway

# 									Canada (22-1221.1) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Cooperation on the Civil Lunar Gateway							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

December 21, 2022

Space

Signed at Saint-Hubert and Kennedy Space Center November 12 and 15, 2020; entered into force December 21, 2022.
Download Agreement						 [5 MB]

Tags

CanadaSpaceTreaties

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### § 403.1 Delivery of counterfeit obligations and other securities and coins authorized.

Authority is hereby given to all banks and banking institutions of any nature whatsoever organized under general or special Federal or State statutes, to all U.S. Post Offices, and to all disbursing officers of the United States and their agents, to take possession of and deliver to the Treasury Department through the Secret Service all counterfeit obligations and other securities and coins of the United States or of any foreign government which shall be presented at their places of business.

[33 FR 4257, Mar. 7, 1968]
www.gpo.gov

### §6. Personal interest of director and members of Bureau in mines

In conducting inquiries and investigations authorized under sections 1, 3, and 5 to 7 of this title neither the director nor any member of the United States Bureau of Mines shall have any personal or private interest in any mine or the products of any mine under investigation, or shall accept employment from any private party for services in the examination of any mine or private mineral property, or issue any report as to the valuation or the management of any mine or other private mineral property. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing the temporary employment by the United States Bureau of Mines, at a compensation not to exceed $10 per day, in a consulting capacity or in the investigation of special subjects, of any engineer or other expert whose principal professional practice is outside of such employment by said bureau.

(May 16, 1910, ch. 240, §4, 36 Stat. 370; Feb. 25, 1913, ch. 72, §4, 37 Stat. 682; Pub. L. 102–285, §10(b), May 18, 1992, 106 Stat. 172.)

#### Change of Name

“United States Bureau of Mines” substituted in text for “Bureau of Mines” pursuant to section 10(b) of Pub. L. 102–285, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

#### Transfer of Functions

See note set out under section 1 of this title.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 of this title; title 42 sections 5821, 7152.
40672.

#### BROWN v. WELSCH.

Decided April 10, 1964.

Hall, Judge.

The original petition in this case was filed in Cobb Superior Court on July 27, 1963. Defendant filed a general demurrer to the petition on August 30, 1963. The petition was amended by plaintiff on October 25, 1963. On November 11, 1963, the defendant filed several special demurrers and renewed his general demurrer to the petition as amended. On December 4, 1963, the trial court sustained three of the special demurrers, overruled the renewed general demurrer and one special demurrer and gave plaintiff ten days to amend the petition. On this same day (December 4, 1963) an amendment to the petition was allowed by the trial court, subject to objection by the defendant, and filed by the plaintiff. No renewed demurrers are shown to have been filed to the petition as amended on December 4, 1963. Error is assigned on the overruling of the general demurrer to the petition, as amended prior to December 4, 1963. *Held:*

Since the petition has been amended as to material matters for the second time and the order complained of is not an overruling of a renewed demurrer to the petition, as amended on December 4, 1963, there is no final judgment with which this court may now deal. *National Surety Corp. v. Hunt,*105 Ga. App. 101 (123 SE2d 558); *Gillon v. Johns,*105 Ga. App. 599 (125 SE2d 70).

Accordingly, the bill of exceptions must be and it is hereby

*Dismissed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.*

*571
      *Doyle C. Brown,*for plaintiff in error.

*Sam J. Welch,*contra.