alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3381

___________ Glenn R. Waite, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Regional West Medical Center; * District of Nebraska. Scottsbluff Internal Medicine Group; * W. Scott Carpenter; Nancy Adams, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: September 19, 1997 Filed: September 25, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Glenn R. Waite brought this action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 2 8 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking a declaration that under the United States and the Nebrask a constituti ons he was entitled to an opportunity for a hearing before an impartia l decision-maker on pending motions in two state court negligence cases. The districtThe Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District 1 of Nebraska. -2- court dismissed his complaint, and denied h is motions to alter or amend the judgment. 1 We affirm. Upo n our careful review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion by th e district court in refusing to entertain this declaratory judgment action. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co. , 115 S. Ct. 2137, 2143 (1995) (standard of review). It is not for the federal court to determine the finality and status of state court cases; the state court s are better able to resolve and adjudicate the issues. See Glover v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 984 F.2d 259, 261 (8th Cir. 1993) (import ant factor in exercising declaratory judgment jurisdiction is whether another, more appropriate remedy is available). Although the district court & s procedures in dis missing this action were improper, see Porter v. Fox , 99 F.3 d 271, 273-74 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), we conclude that the error here was harmless. We also conclude the district court did not abuse it s di scretion in denying Waite leave to file a third amended complaint. See Perkins v
. Spivey , 911 F.2d 22, 34 (8th Cir. 1990) (standard of review), cert den ied , 499 U.S. 920 (1991). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 31.1
                    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
               UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Gregory M. Bolingbroke, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MacDermid, Incorporated;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual 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 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 registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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:

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 registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

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

Date:  September 28, 2004              / s / Gregory M. Bolingbroke
       --------------                   ----------------------------
       for the amended Form 10-K/A       Name: Gregory M. Bolingbroke
       certifying the report as of    Title: Senior Vice President, Finance
       March 15, 2004, date of
       original filing
#### § 452.63 Nominations at conventions.

In elections at conventions at which nominations are also made, delegates who have been elected by secret ballot must be given ample opportunity to nominate candidates on behalf of themselves or the members they represent. A union may adopt a rule limiting access to the convention floor to delegates. However, once the candidates have been nominated, they must be accorded equal opportunity to campaign.[36] Where delegates are instructed by locals to nominate candidates, the constitution of the organization or the convention rules should provide a specific procedure for the implementation of nominating instructions issued by any local to its delegate.

###### Footnotes -
  452.63

[36] See § 452.79.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000588

10-NOV-2016

08:34 AM
§ 4003.55 Opportunity to appear and to present witnesses. ( a ) At the discretion of the Appeals Board, any appearance permitted under this subpart may be before a hearing officer designated by the Appeals Board.
( b ) An opportunity to appear before the Appeals Board (or a hearing officer) and an opportunity to present witnesses will be permitted at the discretion of the Appeals Board. In general, an opportunity to appear will be permitted if the Appeals Board determines that there is a dispute as to a material fact; an opportunity to present witnesses will be permitted when the Appeals Board determines that witnesses will contribute to the resolution of a factual dispute.
( c ) Appearances permitted under this section will take place at the main offices of PBGC, as listed on PBGC's website, *www.pbgc.gov*, unless the Appeals Board, in its discretion, designates a different location, either on its own initiative or at the request of the appellant or a third party participating in the appeal.
[61 FR 34012, July 1, 1996, as amended at 85 FR 10284, Feb. 24, 2020]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Pick Ups Plus, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Robert  White,
Chief Financial 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
to my knowledge:

      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:  August 13, 2004


                                                     /s/ Robert White
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Robert White
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


                                       17
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement Nos. 333-118348, 333-106282, 333-101536, 333-69696,333-45094, 333-83153, 333-58555, 333-29567, 333-02289, 033-60928, 033-58489,and 033-11718 of 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 16, 2005,appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. forthe year ended December 31, 2004.

 

*DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*

 

New York, NYMarch 16, 2005

 

----
Exhibit  99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Starberrys Corporation on Form 10-QSB
for  the  period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ralph Brier, Chief Executive
Officer,  President  and Director 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,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief:

     (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.




                                         "Ralph Brier"
                                         -------------
                                          Ralph Brier
                    Chief  Executive  Officer,  President  and  Director

Date:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40471 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCOS ANTONIO DELMORAL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-109-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marcos Antonio Delmoral appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He concedes that his challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), and he raises it to preserve it for further review by the Supreme Court.No. 05-40471 - 2 - Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). We therefore must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2260

NELSON L. BRUCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC., d/b/a T-Mobile,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Mary Gordon Baker, Magistrate Judge. (2:21-cv-00895-BHH-MGB)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nelson L. Bruce, Appellant Pro Se. Loly G. Tor, K&L GATES, LLP, Newark, New Jersey, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2260 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Nelson L. Bruce seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying Bruce’s

motion to amend his civil complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). 

The order Bruce seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2260 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Kinloch, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Maverick Minerals Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)     presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 17th day of June, 2004.



| | /s/ Robert Kinloch
Robert Kinloch
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







---
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 58 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 58


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2007

              Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
  Welcoming First Minister Dr. Ian Paisley and Deputy First Minister 
      Martin McGuinness of Northern Ireland to the United States.

Whereas on May 8, 2007, power was restored to the Assembly of Northern Ireland, 
        opening a new chapter in the history of Northern Ireland;
Whereas Dr. Ian Paisley became First Minister and Martin McGuinness became 
        Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland;
Whereas Dr. Paisley and Mr. McGuinness have been working to solidify the peace 
        agreement and to govern Northern Ireland effectively; and
Whereas Dr. Paisley and Mr. McGuinness are making their first trip together to 
        the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) welcomes First Minister Dr. Ian Paisley and Deputy 
        First Minister Martin McGuinness of Northern Ireland to the 
        United States;
            (2) commends Dr. Paisley and Mr. McGuinness for showing the 
        world that it is possible to rise above decades of bitter 
        sectarian violence to achieve peace; and
            (3) expresses hope that Northern Ireland will continue to 
        be peaceful and stable in the future.

            Passed the Senate December 4, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`
###### Editorial Note on Part 6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 6 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 6.50 Scope.

This subpart supplements the procedures contained in §§ 4.10 and 4.11 of part 4 of this title and states the rules of practice applicable to hearings under section 4(c) of the Act to determine whether the collectively bargained wages and/or fringe benefits otherwise required to be paid under that section and sections 2(a)(1) and (2) of the Act are substantially at variance with those which prevail for services of a character similar in the locality, and/or to determine whether the wages and/or fringe benefits provided in the collective bargaining agreement were reached as a result of arm's-length negotiations.
Carroll

No. 6607

#### Thomas L. McNamara *& a.*v. Harry H. MacCormac & *a.*

September 28, 1973

*541
      *Kazarosian, Allison & Phillips,*of Massachusetts, for the plaintiffs, filed no brief.

*William D. Paine II,*by brief and orally, for the defendants.

Kenison, C. J.

Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $5000 as liquidated damages under a contract to purchase real estate. Plaintiffs appealed this verdict claiming that there was impossibility of performance, that a disputed boundary line was a cloud on the title, that there were encumbrances on the title, and that descriptions of the premises were inadequate. All of these contentions were rejected by the trial court in a detailed and comprehensive opinion by *Keller,*C. J., who transferred the plaintiffs’ exceptions.

After the case was docketed in this court, plaintiffs requested and received extensions of time within which to file their brief but did not comply with the extended time limits. After the defendants filed their brief the case was set for argument this month and the plaintiffs were again notified but did not submit a brief or written excuse for not doing so. As was pointed out in *State v. LaPalme,*104 N.H. 97, 179 A.2d 284 (1962), failure of an appealing party to file a brief was a practice in this jurisdiction which has been occasionally condoned, generally criticized, and never commended. RSA 490:13 previously provided that although briefs were required “no case shall be dismissed for want of a brief.” This peculiar limitation was specifically deleted and repealed in the 1973 legislature by Laws 1973, 214:2. While this court in isolated instances in the past has decided appeals without the benefit of a brief, it has clearly indicated that it is an unsatisfactory practice which is not to be encouraged. *State v. Hazzard,*104 N.H. 94, 179 A.2d 282 (1962). An examination of the defendants’ brief, the exhibits, and the satisfactory opinion of the court below convinced us that this is a proper case to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal for its failure to comply with RSA 490:13, as amended by Laws 1973, 214:2. *See Field v. Smith,*62 N.H. 698 (1883); *Bell Shops,*
      *542
      *Inc. v. Rosenblatt,*98 N.H. 162, 163, 96 A.2d 204 (1953); *Musgrove v. Parker,*84 N.H. 550, 552, 153 A. 320, 322 (1931). Accordingly the order is

*Plaintiffs’ exceptions overruled; judgment on the verdict.*

All concurred.
#### § 452.19 Executive functions.

The definitional phrase “a person authorized to perform the functions of president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other executive functions of a labor organization” brings within the term “officer” any person who in fact has executive or policy-making authority or responsibility, although he may not occupy a position identified as an officer under the constitution and bylaws of the organization. Authorization to perform such functions need not be contained in any provision of the constitution or bylaws or other document but may be inferred from actual practices or conduct. On the other hand, a person is not an officer merely because he performs ministerial acts for a designated officer who alone has responsibility. The normal functions performed by business agents and shop stewards, such as soliciting memberships, presenting or negotiating employee grievances within the work place, and negotiating contracts are not “other executive functions” as that phrase is used in section 3(n) of the Act. However, a directing business representative or a business manager usually exercises such a degree of executive authority as to be considered an officer and, therefore, must be elected. The duties normally pertaining to membership on a bargaining committee do not come within the phrase “other executive functions.” However, persons occupying such non-executive positions may be “officers” if they are ex officio members of the organization's executive board (or similar governing body) or if the constitution or bylaws of the union designate such positions as officers.