alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7717

JEFFREY D. LANCASTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JERRY MONETTE; NANCY TOOTLE; FRANK HENDERSON;

JOHN POTTER; JOHN DOE; JAMES DOE; JIM DOE; BOB

DOE; ROBERT DOE; LARRY NORMAN; LINDA BLOUNT;

CRAVEN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; BONNIE DOE;

WILLEY DOE; GEORGE DOE; BOBBY DOE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District

Judge. (CA-99-481-5-F)

Submitted: March 13, 2002 Decided: March 21, 2002

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey D. Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart,

SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, P.A., New Bern, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey D. Lancaster appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Lancaster v. Monette, No. CA-99-481-5-F (E.D.N.C.

Sept. 24, 2001). 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
# CE2004065EN.01019501.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/195 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/195

---

(2004/C 65 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2710/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Incense

Subject:

In Ireland there is currently a debate about the health effects of burning incense. Jim McDade, a minister in the Irish government, has issued a warning about the potentially carcinogenic effects of smoke from incense.

Is the Commission aware of this debate?

What, in the Commission's view, are the health risks associated with inhaling smoke from incense?

If it is harmful, what steps will the Commission take to warn the public?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

(3 November 2003)

There are no special European regulations concerning health warnings on commercial products containing incense such as incense cones or candles.

The Commission services are aware of isolated media reports of concern over high levels of potentially carcinogenic substances in the air resulting from burning incense in different settings in Asia. There is no scientific evidence to suggest a comparable situation in the European Union.

Consequently, the Commission is not currently planning to issue a warning to the public on this matter.

However, if the Honourable Member has any scientific evidence, the Commission will be happy to have it examined.

---
#### § 701.1 Federal credit union chartering, field of membership modifications, and conversions.

National Credit Union Administration policies concerning chartering, field of membership modifications, and conversions, also known as the Chartering and Field of Membership Manual, are set forth in appendix B to this part and are available on-line at *http://www.ncua.gov.*

[ 75 FR 36263, June 25, 2010]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 1 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 2 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 3 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 4 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 5 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 6 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 7 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 8 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 9 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 10 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 11 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 12 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 13 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 14 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23624-1 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 16:47:01 Desc:

Appendix Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 15 of 15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

2022-NCSC-56

No. 535A20

Filed 6 May 2022

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

CIERA YVETTE WOODS

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, 275 N.C. App. 364, 853 S.E.2d 177 (2020), finding no error in a

judgment entered on 10 May 2019 by Judge Karen Eady-Williams in Superior Court, 

Mecklenburg County. On 10 August 2021, the Supreme Court allowed defendant’s 

petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 

on 21 March 2022.

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Jessica V. Sutton, Special Deputy 

Attorney General, for the State-appellee.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Aaron Thomas Johnson, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice BERGER did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

case.
AEE

- 16

- 0706

- E

March 24 , 2016

Mr. R. Paul Lawson, PhD

Senior Scientist

SPEC Inc. 3022 Sterling Circle, Sui te 200 Boulder, CO 80301

Dear Mr. Lawson :

Th is letter responds to your petition for exemption dated November 2 3 , 2015, requesting an exemption from Title 14 of The Code of Federal Regulations, §91.881

, for your corporation’s

Restricted Category atmospher ic research Learjet 25, N999MF. Your letter was placed in the

docket as FAA

- 2016

- 0353

. Section 91.881 requires that after December 31, 2015, jet airplanes with a maximum takeoff weight of 75,000 pounds or less must meet Stage 3 noise requirements to oper ate in the contiguous United States.

Section 506 of the FAA Modern ization and Reform Act o f 2012 (FMRA) prohibit s the operation of jets weighing less than 75,000 pounds that do not meet Stage 3. The FMRA also

allows for the limited operation of prohib ited jets for certain purposes. These provisions are listed in the codified statute at 49 USC 47534, and were adopted in 1 4 CFR at §§91.881 and

91.883.

The FAA is unable to grant your request for exemption from §91.881 because we have no authority to do so. The statute did not grant the FAA any authority to make exceptions to the prohibition other than as specified for limited special flight authorizations for specified

purpose s identified in the law.

You noted th at your aircraft was excluded from the F AA’s rulemaking that adopted this statutory change. Since the FAA was given no authority to change the statute, our analysis

conducted a t the time w as not required by law and was not meant to be comprehensive. It was designed to give interested persons a nd affected operators a sense of the range of aircraft subject to the statutory prohibition and the anticipated economic impact for some of the more common models in operation.2

Accordingly, we are taking no further action on your request and the docket i s being closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lourdes Maurice Director, Environment and Energy
# Official Journal C 5A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.005.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 5A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5610 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.005.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 5A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5610 January 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2013/C 005A/01 | Corrigendum to vacancy notice ECA/2012/74 — Director (function group AD, grade 14/15) — Secretariat-General — Translation Directorate (OJ C 369 A, 29.11.2012) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2013/C 005A/01

Corrigendum to vacancy notice ECA/2012/74 — Director (function group AD, grade 14/15) — Secretariat-General — Translation Directorate (OJ C 369 A, 29.11.2012)

(OJ C 369 A, 29.11.2012)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |

5

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Icagen, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Richard D. Katz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(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.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                      | 
|Dated: March 30, 2010 |  | /s/ Richard D. Katz    
|                      |  | Richard D. Katz, M.D.  
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### DUNLEVY *v.*ROSS.

Sci. fa. — two nihils — appearance in court — order of revival.

The statute provides that two nihils on scire facias to revive a judgment, shall be equal to a return of the writ served, and the party thenceforth considered *in court.*

In such case after the second return, if the defendant do not answer, the order of revival will pass on his default.

Scire facias to revive a judgment. Two writs have been issued and returned *nihil.*The plaintiff moved for judgment, or a short rule for plea.

By the Court.

The statute (29 *O, L.*74) makes a return of two nihils in this class of cases equal to service; and provides that the defendant shall thereafter be considered in court, and be proceeded against accordingly. No formal or technical appearance is necessary, after the second nihil; the law holds the defendant *in Court,*and if he do answer, of plead, he may be defaulted. The defendant was then called, and failed to answer.

*Ordered,*That the judgment be *revived,*and that the plaintiff have execution thereof.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BULLETIN 1030 PLATE 11

EDGE OF ROAD

SHEAR
ZONE.

Slope wasn Wall of cut partly restored

SS NAY
Lorin of hoor zone > \ N&;,

Collar of shaft projected'to section

AS

SEN,
Kae~"\ Approximate tower limit of
oxidation in shaft

Se
Y%e YRo2

%,

\

Inclined shaft projected —TM..
into section

SS

i)

6600

6590"

6580)

+6570"

ar

TRUE NORTH

EXPLANATION

Pitchbiende-bearing vein

TERTIARY)

PRECAMBRIAN

Fault showing dip, dashed
where approximately located

Strike and dip of foliation
Strike and dip of joints
‘Gn TTTETEROOTD workings

Lit iodine
Rin of ecaraton
Wy,
Dump

Mapped by J. W. Adams and
‘A.J. Gude, 3d February 1952

GEOLOGIC MAP AND SECTION OF THE UNION PACIFIC DEPOSIT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO

10 30 Feet

Contour interval feet
Datum assumed

384541 © -56 (In pocket)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 08, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 08, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0166. HARRISON FLOYD v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

23SC188947
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Each of the undersigned in the capacityindicated hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, this Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended July 3, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Carter’s, Inc. and The WilliamCarter Company.

 

 
|     | Date:  August  17, 2004 | /s/ FREDERICK J.  ROWAN, II |     |
|----------|------------------------------|-----------------------------|----------|
|     |                         | Frederick J.  Rowan, II     |     |
| * * | * *                     | *Chief Executive Officer*   | * * |
| * * | * *                     | * *                    | * * |
| * * | * *                     | * *                    | * * |
|     | Date:  August  17, 2004 | /s/ MICHAEL D.  CASEY       |     |
|     |                         | Michael D. Casey            |     |
| * * | * *                     | *Chief Financial Officer*   | * * |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                          28,739
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,742
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,455
<PP&E>                                          69,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,477
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,927,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,541,607
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,614
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,384,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,927,561
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,084,002
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  520,122
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                520,122
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            520,122
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   520,122
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1204.403 General policy.

NASA's general policy for small business programs is described in 48 CFR part 1819, Small Business Programs; 48 CFR part 1852, Solicitation Provisions and Contract; and NASA Policy Directive 5000.2C, Small Business Subcontracting Goals (*http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=5000&s=2*).

[78 FR 77353, Dec. 23, 2013]
#### Alley *v.*Davis, superintendent of banks, *et al.*

No. 9004.

November 17, 1932.

*J. C. & H. E.*Edwards, for plaintiff in error.

*C. H. Edwards, contra.*

Hill, J.

1. Under the allegations of the petition the court did not err in overruling the demurrer and in refusing to dismiss the action.

2. Neither was there error in continuing the temporary restraining order in force until further order of the court. *Hines*v. *Lavant,*158 *Ga.*336 (5) (123 S. E. 611). And see *Dixon*v. *Monroe,*112 *Ga.*158 (37 S. E. 180). *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### PIZITZ V. SIMS.

(Decided November 25, 1913.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. John H. Miller.

No counsel marked for appellant. Harsi-i, Beddow & Fitts, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
ROE R10E RIE R1I2E RI4E RISE RIGE RI7E RIBE
: T
4 * bs !
' 1 OCcHOCO
c . 26} |
ae NATIONAL
FOREST
L-
Jefferson County a:
— [Deschutes County [Fs °°.)
42 Sisters
DESCHUTES spew
NATIONAL
FOREST a nl
20 o@ h * sPrinalle
~ ey aktesePvoir

I \ fe

asc

Crook |County _ |
~ Deschutes| County

Wickiup
Res

Lake County |

Klamath County

DESCHUTES
Paulina re
Lake a) Ri
Ss
ir NATIONAL
°
u 2 Pa
Deschutes County ne ee Jo t-te
pee Deschutes 02g
FOREST

Legend

Planning Area
Highway
—— Road

| Urban Growth Boundary
Administered Lands

Ly Bureau of Land

Management
CL] National Forest
by National Grassland
[1 Bureau of Reclamation
a State of Oregon Ay
[} Private / Other

RMP Map 9: Priority Restoration Areas

(Designations Apply Only to BLM Administered Land)

Treatment Priorities

Tim

Aquatic Stronghold Restoration
Ponderosa Pine

Priority Old Growth Juniper
Restoration

Priority Sage Grouse Restoration

Verified High Priority Restoration-
Upper Crooked River Subbasin

Verified High Priority Restoration-
Lower Crooked River Subbasin

>) Wildland Urban Interface Zones

Prineville
District

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
PRINEVILLE DISTRICT

2005

N
W- E
$ Upper Deschutes
5 ° 5 io Resource Management Plan
————=
MILES
5 0 5 10
cece
KILOMETERS No warranty is nade by the Bureau of Land Management ast he acour@oj,

reliably, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use
with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This
information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product
was developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

TMO5-04-02:MW.080105,
R10E RITE RI2E

RIE

RISE

RI6E RITE RIE

Steelhead Falls
“ WSA

Jefferson County

Jefferson Count)

Deschutes County] gg

F=3Crook County

. a
: ‘ -pOOKED,
Terrebonne CROC a
a] \ 4
ona A :
= in t i 35 ‘Ochoeo
— ‘ Reservoir | TM@
hond im
a
ae r Powell ~ a
Butte \
o
a
a
Prineville
i Reservoir
a
|
a |
nak
Ridge
/ Horse Ridge’ Crook County _ J
f RNA/ Deschutes | County
ACEC
20)
Brothers
—
Paulina bast
Lake Q we) Lake
°
Gos r 3
Deschutes ty WL t-te - eo
Y°Q
4 a
2
5
3
1s)
2
4
4
4
| ;

Legend Prineville
District
Recreation Emphasis Planning Area
[_] Multi-Use Seperate Facilities nanway
. ae Roa
[_] Multi-Use Shared Facilities [7] Urban Growth Boundary N
[J Non-Motorized Recreation w :
Exclusive Wildlife Emphasis
| Non-Motorized Recreation ,
Emphasis Primary 8
HE Non-Recreation Emphasis LZ, Secondary 5 oO 5
———
{HG Roads Only Emphasis [HMM General MILES
5 0 5 40
KILOMETERS

RMP Map 4: Wildlife and Recreation Emphasis

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
PRINEVILLE DISTRICT

2005

Upper Deschutes
Resource Management Plan

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliably, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use

with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This
information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product
was developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

TMO5-04-02:MW. 082605

>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chell Group Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ending May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Bolink,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350,
as adopted pursuant to (S) 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; and (2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                       By:         /s/ David Bolink
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                                     DAVID BOLINK
                                                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                                                  CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

November 30, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Chell Group Corporation and will
be retained by Chell Group Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 4.40 Fees for services. ( a ) *Fees for records search, copying, and certification.* The requester shall pay a fee to the OCC, or to a commercial copier under contract to the OCC, for any records search, copying, or certification in accordance with the standards specified in § 4.17. The OCC may require a requester to remit payment prior to providing the requested information.
( b ) *Witness fees and mileage.* A person whose request for testimony of a current OCC employee is approved shall, upon completion of the testimonial appearance, tender promptly to the OCC payment for the witness fees and mileage. The litigant shall compute these amounts in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821. A litigant whose request for testimony of a former OCC employee is approved shall tender promptly to the witness any witness fees or mileage due in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821.
[60 FR 57322, Nov. 15, 1995. Redesignated at 63 FR 62929, Nov. 10, 1998]