alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1879

In re: JAMEL LAW , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1:10

- cr
- 00477

- CMH

- 2 )

Submitted : November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018

Before DUNCAN and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jamel Law, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jamel Law petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for a sentence reduction . He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the dist rict court’s docket reveals that the
district court ruled on Law’s motion for sentence reduction. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Law ’s motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperi s. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
§ 1608.6 Affirmative action plans which are part of Commission conciliation or settlement agreements. ( a ) *Procedures for review of plans.* If adherence to a conciliation or settlement agreement executed under title VII and approved by a responsible official of the EEOC is the basis of a complaint filed under title VII, or is alleged to be the justification for an action challenged under title VII, the Commission will investigate to determine: ( 1 ) Whether the conciliation agreement or settlement agreement was approved by a responsible official of the EEOC, and
( 2 ) Whether adherence to the agreement was the basis for the complaint or justification. If the Commission so finds, it will make a determination of no reasonable cause under § 1608.10(a) and will advise the respondent of its right under section 713(b)(1) of title VII to rely on the conciliation agreement.
( b ) *Reliance on these guidelines.* In addition, if the affirmative action plan or program has been adopted in good faith reliance on these Guidelines, the provisions of section 713(b)(1) of title VII and of § 1608.10(b), of this part, may be asserted by the respondent.
Assignment, between Silicon Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bancshares



 Exhibit 4.23 
 ASSIGNMENT 
 For value received, Silicon Valley Bank hereby sells,
assigns and transfers unto: 
 Name: Silicon Valley Bancshares 
 Address: 3003 Tasman Drive (HA-200) 
 Santa Clara, CA 95054 
 TaxID: 
 that certain Warrant to Purchase Stock issued by Optical Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”), on August 16, 2004 (the
“Warrant”) together with all rights, title and interest therein. 
  

			
	SILICON VALLEY BANK
		
	By:	 	/s/ Jay McNeil
	Name:	 	 Jay McNeil

	Title: 	 	 SVP



 Date:     8/19/04     
 By its execution below, and for the benefit of the Company, Silicon Valley Bancshares makes each of the representations and warranties set forth in Article
4 of the Warrant as of the date hereof. 
  

			
	SILICON VALLEY BANCSHARES
		
	By:	 	/s/ Paulette Mehas
	Name:	 	 Paulette Mehas

	Title: 	 	 Treasurer
No. 76-1323.

#### Foster *v.*Kingdon.

Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.
§ 21.109 IRB review of research. ( a ) An IRB shall review and have authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research activities covered by this policy, including exempt research activities under § 21.104 for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption (under § 21.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7), and (8)).
( b ) An IRB shall require that information given to subjects (or legally authorized representatives, when appropriate) as part of informed consent is in accordance with § 21.116. The IRB may require that information, in addition to that specifically mentioned in § 21.116, be given to the subjects when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects.
( c ) An IRB shall require documentation of informed consent or may waive documentation in accordance with § 21.117.
( d ) An IRB shall notify investigators and the institution in writing of its decision to approve or disapprove the proposed research activity, or of modifications required to secure IRB approval of the research activity. If the IRB decides to disapprove a research activity, it shall include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision and give the investigator an opportunity to respond in person or in writing.
( e ) An IRB shall conduct continuing review of research requiring review by the convened IRB at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, not less than once per year, except as described in § 21.109(f).
( f ) ( 1 ) Unless an IRB determines otherwise, continuing review of research is not required in the following circumstances: ( i ) Research eligible for expedited review in accordance with § 21.110;
( ii ) Research reviewed by the IRB in accordance with the limited IRB review described in § 21.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8);
( iii ) Research that has progressed to the point that it involves only one or both of the following, which are part of the IRB-approved study: ( A ) Data analysis, including analysis of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, or
( B ) Accessing follow-up clinical data from procedures that subjects would undergo as part of clinical care.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( g ) An IRB shall have authority to observe or have a third party observe the consent process and the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
XXI
XXII
XXIII

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
#### Adam Weber, Resp’t *v.*Vincent Demuth *et al.,*App’lts.

*(City Court of New York*

*General Term,*

*Filed January 31, 1889.)*

Wabbanty—When subvives acceptance oe goods.

When a manufacturer agrees to make a thing for a particular purpose, there is an implied warranty that it shall he reasonably fit for that purpose, *287and where the defects are of a character not readily discoverable until after the article is used, but are of a latent nature, the warranty survives, the acceptance of the goods.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff directed by the trial judge.

*Foster, Hotaling & Klenke,*for app’lt; *Douglass & Min-ton,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, as a manufacturer of tiles- and fire-brick, undertook to furnish tiles and fire-brick that would withstand the heat of the furnaces used by the defendants as glass manufacturers, and the tiles and firebrick were to be made skillfully and of extra materials. The plaintiff knew at the time of accepting the order that the tiles were intended to be used in a place in the furnace where they would be subjected to the greatest heat, and where great damage would result if they proved deficient. The defendants, in reliance on the plaintiff’s agreement, which was in the nature of a warranty that the tiles were suitable for the purpose intended, and knowing nothing to the contrary, put them up in the place for which they were made. After a short use the tiles melted under the heat and destroyed the furnace, and eleven glass melting pots contained therein, to the defendant’s damage $2,000. The tiles furnished turned out to be unskillfully made, not of extra, but of poor, materials. These facts were pleaded by way of defense to a check given by the defendants to the plaintiff, and also by way of counter-claim. The trial judge held that the fact's stated constituted neither a defense nor counter-claim, and directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed. This was error. When a manufacturer agrees to make a thing for a particular purpose, there is an implied warranty that it shall be reasonably fit for that purpose. *Maurer*v. *Bliss,*(6 St. R., 224.

The defects were of a character not readily discoverable until after the tiles were used, for they were of a latent nature. The warranty, therefore, survived the acceptancé of the goods. For the reasons stated, the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
EXHIBIT 23.2


LAWRENCE SCHARFMAN & CO., CPA PC
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

18 E SUNRISE HIGHWAY, #203                        9608 HONEY BELL CIRCLE
FREEPORT, NY 11520                                BOYNTON BEACH FL, 33437
TELEPHONE: (516) 771-5900                         TELEPHONE: (561) 733-0296
FACSIMILE: (516) 771-2598                         FACSIMILE: (561) 470-0613


     MARSHALL HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
     RICHARD BAILEY
     2555 EAST WASHBURN ROAD
     NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV 89081


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

I hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB filed on
or about April 13, 2007 of the report dated April 10, 2007, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Gateway Distributors, Ltd. for the year
ended December 31, 2005, and to our inclusion as a named expert. Our report
included an explanatory paragraph regarding the substantial doubt about
Gateway's ability to continue as a going concern.


Sincerely

/s/ Lawrence Scharfman
---------------------------
Lawrence Scharfman
**Exhibit23.1**

July 12, 2005

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

450 5th Street N.W

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Ladies/Gentlemen,

Re. Kenilworth Systems Corporation

                Form 10-K/A, Amendment No.1, y/e* *12/31/04

We concur with therestated financial statements contained therein and, audited by us. Theoriginal Form 10-K contained unaudited financial statements. Our audit forthe period ended December 31, 2004 of the restated financial statementswas not completed until June 17, 2005.
| /s/ Demetrius & Company, 

L.L.C. |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                       |
| JAD:jad                                    |

 

----
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v GRESKO

Case No. 85-257 AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

November 3, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Calvin L. Fox, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

*145Jerold H. Reichler for appellee.

Before TENDRICH, BARAD, HENDERSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FREDERICK N. BARAD, Judge.

Appellant, the State of Florida, seeks review and reversal of the order entered by the trial court granting Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss.

Appellee was charged with driving under the influence and entered a plea of not guilty. The case was scheduled for trial on June 3, 1985, at which time the State requested and received a continuance. Trial was re-set for July 3, 1985.

On June 28, 1985, Appellee’s counsel was notified by telephone by the State that the State knew of the existence of additional witnesses and was filing an Additional List of Witnesses. On July 1, 1985, Appellee’s counsel received the State’s Additional List of Witnesses. The July 3 trial was subsequently rescheduled due to inadequate time within which to depose the newly listed witnesses. The State was charged with a second continuance and the trial was re-set for July 10, 1985, a date within the required speedy trial period which was to expire July 18, 1985.

On July 10, 1985, at the time scheduled for trial, Appellee’s counsel complained that it had been unable to subpoena and depose two witnesses that appeared on the State’s witness list. The prosecutor stated that he did not intend to use the two witnesses that defense counsel had been unable to depose and announced that the State was ready to proceed to trial. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the case “on the basis of all that’s transpired.”

The State asserts that it was an abuse of the court’s discretion and error as a matter of law to grant the Motion to Dismiss.

We agree.

As stated in *State v. Valdez,*443 So.2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983):

> It is well established that it is not the responsibility of the prosecution to produce the state’s witnesses for depositions. Furthermore, to order the state to do so, or to dismiss a criminal case for failure of the state to do so, constitutes a departure from essential requirements of law.

Dismissal of an information or indictment is an action of such magnitude that resort to such a sanction should only be had in extraordinary situations when no viable alternative exists. See *State v.*
      *146
      *Del Gaudio,*445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); *State v. King,*372 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); *State v. Carty, 14*Fla.Supp. 2d 143 (Cir. Ct. Dade 1985).

Accordingly, the order dismissing the charge against Appellee is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
<TABLE>
                                                     Exhibit 12


                    LACLEDE GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

           SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
           -------------------------------------------------------------

<CAPTION>
                                        Fiscal Year Ended September 30,
                                  ----------------------------------------
                                  1998     1997     1996     1995     1994
                                  ----     ----     ----     ----     ----
                                            (Thousands of Dollars)
<S>                            <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Income before interest
 charges and the cumulative
 effect of change in
 accounting                    $49,162  $51,554  $50,771  $39,428  $38,611
 
Add: Taxes based on
       utility income           14,933   17,962   18,603    9,878   12,517 

     Taxes based on
       miscellaneous income        508      392     (205)     252      121

     One third of applicable
       rentals charged to
       operating expense
      (which approximates the
      interest factor)             297      294      291      288      287   
                               -------------------------------------------
        Total Earnings         $64,900  $70,202  $69,460  $49,846  $51,536   
                               ===========================================
 
Interest on long-term debt     $14,797  $14,169  $13,939  $12,544  $12,626
Other interest                   6,473    4,919    4,008    5,983    3,768

One-third of applicable rentals
  charged to operating expense
  (which approximates the
  interest factor)                 297      294      291      288      287
                               -------------------------------------------
   Total Fixed Charges         $21,567  $19,382  $18,238  $18,815  $16,681   
                               ===========================================

Ratio of Earnings to 
  Fixed Charges                   3.01     3.62     3.81     2.65     3.09

</TABLE>






                                    67
November 10, 2004

  1080409 Ontario Limited
  185 Davenport Road.
  Suite 300
  Toronto, ON M5R 111
  Attention: Garth Drabinsky

  Dear Sirs:

       Re: Consulting Agreement between Visual Bible
       International, Inc. ("VBI") and 1080409 Ontario Limited
       (the "Consultant") made as of April 1, 2004 (the
       "Consulting Agreement")

  VBI's next planned fi1m production is The Gospel of Mark. VBI
  expects the necessary financing for such  next production to
  be in place by the end of January, 2005 and that principal
  photography will commence in March, 2005. VBI is also in the
  process of recruiting a new management team. In order to
  ensure a smooth transition, VBI will require transition
  consulting services from the Consultant as per the directions
  from VBI from time to time on the basis of the foregoing
  schedule until the end of March, 2005. The Consultant wi11 be
  compensated following the expiration of the Consulting
  Agreement at the same rate as is provided in the Consulting
  Agreement.  If for any reason, the commencement of principle
  photography  for The Gospel of Mark is delayed,  VBI will
  require such transitional consulting services to continue
  beyond March, 2005 until the commencement of such principal
  photography subject to a maximum of an additional 3 months.
  With respect to subsection 6(b) of the Consulting Agreement, VBl
  hereby confirms that upon completion of the financing for The
  Gospel of Mark and conclusion of an agreement with holders of
  the outstanding debentures of VBI providing for the payout
  and/or conversion of  such debentures in connection with the
  completion of such financing. the Consultant shall receive
  $450,000.00 payable by the issuance to the Consultant of common
  shares of VBI at the conversion price agreed to by the debenture
  holders at such time.

  Yours truly,

  Visual Bible International, Inc.

  Per: Maurice Colson
       Chief Executive Officer
#### SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS v. UNITED STATES

[84 C. Cls. 16; 302 U. S. 740]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court November 8, 1937.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edgar A. Velez, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 531]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leach, J.), rendered November 5, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606).

The defendant has raised no nonfrivolous issues in his *485supplemental *pro se*brief. Bracken, J. P., Friedmann, Gold-stein and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. AMERICAN TELEVISION COMPANY

5-5642

472 S.W. 2d 103

Opinion delivered November 1, 1971

*Thomas B. Keys*and *Hubert Graves,*for appellant.

*Bethell, Callaway, King ir Robertson,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellant highway department acquired by warranty deed a tract of land upon which the appellee, an outdoor advertising company, was maintaining signs under the authority of a lease executed by the highway department’s grantor. The highway department intends to construct curbs, gutters, and storm sewers on the property. The department, having succeeded to the lessor’s interest in the property, brought this suit to compel the appellee to remove the signs, under this provision in the lease:

> In the event said property is to be improved by the erection thereon of a permanent building this agreement may be cancelled by refunding to the Lessee all unearned prepaid rental and giving 60 days written notice to the Lessee of the intention to erect said permanent building; Provided, however, that if the proposed improvement has not been commenced at the expiration of the said 60 days notice, the period shall be continued and the Lessee shall *295be required to vacate said premises in sufficient time so as not to obstruct building operations; in the event the proposed building is not erected as planned, this agreement shall continue in force for the term (or renewal thereof) herein specified.

Upon the undisputed proof, in the form of answers to the appellee’s interrogatories, the chancellor correctly entered a summary judgment for the appellee. The department admits that it does not intend to erect a permanent building on the property. The department contends, however, that the quoted paragraph in the lease also refers to a “proposed improvement,” and that curbs, gutters, and storm sewers are improvements. Such an interpretation, in our opinion, would do violence to the language of the lease. The reference to a proposed improvement appears in a subordinate proviso and clearly refers back to the “permanent building” that is mentioned twice in the opening clause of the paragraph. Hence the words “proposed improvement” cannot fairly be taken to mean anything except a permanent building. The department admittedly does not have any such structure in mind.

Affirmed.