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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6820

JOHN ALLEN COSNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97-

4265-L)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Allen Cosner, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Allen Cosner seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cosner v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-4265-L

(D. Md. May 21, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.2





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements on Form F-3 and related prospectus of B.O.S Better Online Solutions Ltd. (“BOS”) (Nos. 333-130048 and 333-152020) and into the Registration Statements of BOS on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-160414, 333-148318, 333-136957, 333-110696, 333-100971 and 333-11650) of our report dated March 29, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of BOS - Supply Chain Solutions (Lynk) Inc. (formally known as Lynk USA Inc.) included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010.




/s/ ARIK ESHEL, CPA & ASSOC., PC
ARIK ESHEL, CPA & ASSOC., PC




June 29, 2011
#### § 96.11 Basis of award to the States.

The Secretary will award the block grant funds allotted to the State in accordance with the apportionment of funds from the Office of Management and Budget. Such awards will reflect amounts reserved for Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations and, in FY 1982, any amounts awarded by the Department under transition authorities. The grant award constitutes the authority to carry out the program and to draw and expend funds.

[47 FR 29486, July 6, 1982; 47 FR 43062, Sept. 30, 1982]
§ 12.621 Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as person in charge of medical care. ( a ) To qualify for an STCW endorsement as person in charge of medical care, an applicant must— ( 1 ) Provide evidence of successful completion of an approved course that leads to an endorsement for seafarers designated to take charge of medical care onboard a ship; and
( 2 ) Provide evidence of meeting the standard of competence specified in Table A-VI/4-2 of the STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see § 12.103 of this part).
( b ) An applicant holding any of the following credentials is qualified for an endorsement as person in charge of medical care: ( 1 ) A valid professional license listed in § 11.807(a)(5) or (a)(6) of this subchapter, without restriction or limitation placed upon it by the issuing State.
( 2 ) A rating listed in § 11.807(a)(7) or (a)(8) of this subchapter.
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.03-29 Great Lakes.

A designation for all vessels in Great Lakes service.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Bobby Yazdani, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Saba Software, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify, as of the date hereof, solely forpurposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company atthe dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement 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 tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

Date: October 15, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Varsity Group Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                      |  |    |  |                                                                    
|--------------------- |  | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |   
|Date: August 16, 2004 |  | By |  | /s/ Jack M Benson                                                  
|                      |  |    |  | Jack M Benson Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
§ 1634.8 Selection process. ( a ) After receipt of all applications for a particular service area, Corporation staff shall: ( 1 ) Review each application and any additional information that the Corporation has regarding each applicant, including for any applicant that is or includes a current or former recipient, past monitoring and compliance reports, performance evaluations and other pertinent records for the past six years;
( 2 ) Request from an applicant and review any additional information that the Corporation determines is appropriate to evaluate the application fully;
( 3 ) Conduct one or more on-site visits to an applicant if the Corporation determines that such visits are appropriate to evaluate the application fully;
( 4 ) Summarize in writing information regarding the applicant that is not contained in the application if appropriate for the review process; and
( 5 ) Convene a review panel unless there is only one applicant for a particular service area and the Corporation determines that use of a review panel is not appropriate. The review panel shall: ( i ) Review the applications and the summaries prepared by the Corporation staff. The review panel may request other information identified by the Corporation as necessary to evaluate the applications fully; and
( ii ) Make a written recommendation to the Corporation regarding the award of grants or contracts from the Corporation for a particular service area.
( 6 ) After considering the recommendation made by the review panel, if a review panel was convened, make a staff recommendation to the President. The staff recommendation shall include the recommendation of the review panel and, if the staff recommendation differs from that of the review panel, an explanation of the basis for the difference in the recommendations.
( b ) After reviewing the written recommendations, the President shall select the applicants to be awarded grants or contracts from the Corporation and the Corporation shall notify each applicant in writing of the President's decision regarding each applicant's application.
( c ) In the event that there are no applicants for a service area or that the Corporation determines that no applicant meets the criteria and therefore determines not to award a grant or contract for a particular service area, the Corporation shall take all practical steps to ensure the continued provision of legal assistance in that service area. The Corporation shall have discretion to determine how legal assistance is to be provided to the service area, including, but not limited to, enlarging the service area of a neighboring recipient, putting a current recipient on month-to-month funding or entering into a short term, interim grant or contract with another qualified provider for the provision of legal assistance in the service area until the completion of a competitive bidding process within a reasonable period of time.
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.430 Heat transfer systems; general. Each cargo cooling system required by this part and each cargo heating system must: ( a ) Meet the standards of Subchapters F (Marine Engineering) and J (Electrical Engineering) of this chapter;
( b ) Have valving that enables the system to be separated from all other cooling and heating systems; and
( c ) Allow manual regulation of the system's heat transfer rate.
[CGD 73-96, 42 FR 49027, Sept. 26, 1977, as amended by CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21209, May 17, 1982; CGD 81-078, 50 FR 21174, May 22, 1985]
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

DATE & TIME: THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2017 AT 10:00 A.M.

PLACE: 999 E STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. (NINTH FLOOR)

STATUS: THIS HEARING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED:

Audit Hearing: Illinois Republican Party

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language 

interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna Brown,

Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer

Telephone: (202) 694-1220

Signed: _______________________________

Dayna C. Brown

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission

Submitted: June 15, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THERESA HAIRSTON,

Plaintiff, Case Number 14-13218

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER,

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Presently before the Court is the report issued on July 7, 2015 by Magistrate Judge Michael

J. Hluchaniuk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court deny the plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment, grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and affirm the

decision of the Commissioner. Although the report stated that the parties to this action could object

to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no

objections have been filed thus far. The parties’ failure to file objections to the report and

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231,

829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report

releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt.

#20] is ADOPTED.

2:14-cv-13218-DML-MJH Doc # 21 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 450
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. #16] is

DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. #19] is

GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

It is further ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: August 3, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on August 3, 2015.

s/Susan Pinkowski 

SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-2-

2:14-cv-13218-DML-MJH Doc # 21 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 451
#### William E. Mowbray, Appellant, *v.*Harriet De Forest, as Ancillary Executrix of William H. De Forest, Jr., Deceased, Respondent.

*Mowbray*v. *De Forest,*132 App. Div. 924, affirmed.

(Argued January 24, 1910;

decided February 8, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 22, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a referee in an action for an accounting.

*Henry Parsons*for appellant.

*Herbert R. Limburg*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett. Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN P. GREINER, JR., 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-13979 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CHARTER COUNTY OF MACOMB, 

MICHIGAN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND ADDRESSING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR RELIEF 

 On February 3, 2017, Lance W. Mason (“Mr. Mason”), attorney for Plaintiff 

John P. Greiner, Jr. (“Mr. Greiner”), filed an Emergency Motion for Withdrawal of 

Attorney (the “Motion to Withdraw”). (See ECF #91.) For the reasons stated on 

the record on March 1, 2017, the Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED, and Mr. 

Mason’s appearance as counsel in this action is TERMINATED. Mr. Mason shall 

meet Mr. Greiner at 7:00 p.m. on March 6, 2017, at the front entrance of the Mt. 

Clemens Public Library for the purpose of delivering to Mr. Greiner the files that 

Mr. Mason maintained in connection with this civil action. 

 On February 27, 2017, Mr. Greiner, on his own behalf, filed a “Motion for 

Relief and Response to Defendants Responses to Mr. Mason’s Motion to 

Withdraw” (“Mr. Greiner’s Motion”). (See ECF #98.) The Court considered Mr. 

2:14-cv-13979-MFL-RSW Doc # 99 Filed 03/02/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2290
2

Greiner’s requests for relief on the record on March 1, 2017. For the reasons 

explained on the record, all of the requests for relief listed in Mr. Greiner’s Motion 

are DENIED, except that Mr. Greiner may file responses of not more than 35 

pages to each of the pending Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF ## 89, 90.) As 

the Court advised Mr. Greiner on the record, his responses must adhere to this 

Court’s Local Rules, including Local Rule 5.1 and Local Rule 7.1. 

Mr. Greiner’s responses to the summary judgment motions are due on April 

3, 2017. Defendants may reply in support of their motion by April 17, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 2, 2017 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on March 2, 2017, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-13979-MFL-RSW Doc # 99 Filed 03/02/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2291
#### SIGMUND HEITLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF LEON HEITLER, AND BETTY HEITLER, PLAINTIFFS, v. IRVING T. FARR, DEFENDANT.

Decided November 4, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchard, Kalisoh and Lloyd.

For the rule, *Alexander Simpson.*

*Contra, Autemrieth, Gannon & Wortendyhe (Beynier J. Wortendyhe, Jr.,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

There was a verdict in this case, in the Hudson Circuit, in favor of the infant plaintiff, and against the defendant for the sum of $1,501. The father who sued for loss of service, in the same action, obtained a verdict of $500, and his mother appears to have also recovered a verdict of one dollar.

The controversy arose out of an automobile accident, in which the infant plaintiff sustained a skull fracture and other serious and permanent injuries.

It is practically conceded in brief of counsel of defendant, that if there was liability, the damages awarded to the plaintiffs are wholly inadequate.

From a reading of the testimony, we have reached the conclusion that the verdicts are inadequate and require a new trial, but that the new trial shall not be limited to the measure of damages only, but shall be on all the issues involved in the case.

Rule made absolute.
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 on Form 10-Q of Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Mary Kay Fenton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, 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: May 15, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Mary Kay Fenton    
|                    |  |  |  | Mary Kay Fenton        
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-13710

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Sean F. Cox

Inc., United States District Court Judge

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF

DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay

Proceedings Pending Resolution of Defendant’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. (D.E. No. 92). 

Having considered this unopposed motion, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Motion is

GRANTED and proceedings in this action are STAYED until further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: August 15, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

August 15, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

1

Case 2:14-cv-13710-SFC-DRG ECF No. 94 filed 08/15/18 PageID.2392 Page 1 of 1
F ac ili ty Lo ca t i on E m i ss i o n I n ve n t o ry Year F ac ili t y V O C

E m i ss i o ns (t o n s/ yea r) P a ct iv F r e s no 2011 27

. 55 P a ct i v B a k e r s f i e ld 2011 101

. 45 P r eg i s I nno v a t i v e P a ckag i ng V i s a lia 2010 85

. 11
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2738

___________

Carolyn Betton; Cytoys Durham; *

Colette Howard; Jurlean Johnson; *

Charlene King, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

Eric T. Tolen, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Appellant, * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

St. Louis County, Missouri, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 21, 2010

Filed: December 30, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

Eric Tolen appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his request for attorney fees in

the matter of Betton v. St. Louis County, No. 4:05-cv-01455. We conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tolen’s request. See Peter v. Jax,

187 F.3d 829, 833 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.470 System for discharge of NLS residue to the sea: Categories A, B, C, and D. Unless waived under § 153.491, each ship that discharges Category A, B, or C NLS residue, or Category D NLS residue not diluted to 1 ⁄ 10th of its original concentration, into the sea under §§ 153.1126 and 153.1128 must have an NLS residue discharge system meeting the following: ( a ) *Minimum diameter of an NLS residue discharge outlet.* The outlet of each NLS residue discharge system must have a diameter at least as great as that given by the following formula: where: D = Minimum diameter of the discharge outlet in meters. Qd = Maximum rate in cubic meters per hour at which the ship operator wishes to discharge slops (note: Qd affects the discharge rate allowed under § 153.1126(b)(2)). L = Distance from the forward perpendicular to the discharge outlet in meters. φ = The acute angle between a perpendicular to the shell plating at the discharge location and the direction of the average velocity of the discharged liquid.
( b ) *Location of an NLS residue discharge outlet.* Each NLS residue discharge outlet must be located— ( 1 ) At the turn of the bilge beneath the cargo area; and
( 2 ) Where the discharge from the outlet is not drawn into the ship's seawater intakes.
( c ) *Location of dual NLS residue discharge outlets.* If the value of 6.45 for K is used in § 153.1126(b)(2), the NLS residue discharge system must have two outlets located on opposite sides of the ship.
[CGD 81-101, 52 FR 7781, Mar. 12, 1987, as amended by CGD 81-101, 53 FR 28974, Aug. 1, 1988 and 54 FR 12629, Mar. 28, 1989; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51209, Sept. 30, 1997]