alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ALLAN L. GANT, Doctor, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 95-8589 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-948-2) Submitted: October 10, 1997 Decided: November 17, 1997 Before WILKINS, ERVIN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Allan L. Gant, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Allan L. Gant, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that the district court direct the FBI to investigate a complaint he filed. Gant also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ordered that Gant pay a partial filing fee of $13.75, which was fifteen percent of the money available to himat the time of filing his petition. After Gant paid the fee, the court dismissed his action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 1915(d) (1994), amended by28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997), on the basis that Gant did not allege facts that would satisfy the court's limited subject matter jurisdiction. Section 1915 allows a litigant to pro ceed in forma pauperis upon proof of inability to pay court costs and fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), amended by28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a) (West Supp. 1997).* The statutealso allows the district court to dismiss the in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte if it is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In Church v. Attorney General , No. 95-7722, 1997 WL 560070 (4thCir. Sept. 10, 1997), this court addressed the issue of whether the district court, applying pre-PLRA law, erred in dismissing Church's action as frivolous after his payment of a partial filing fee. See Church , 1997 WL 560070, at *5. The procedural aspects of the case are the same ones at issue here. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint sua sponte as frivolous. Id.We therefore vacate the district court order dismissing Gant's petition and remand the case to the district court to allow Gant to amend his petition, id. , or have the Defendants respond to the petition and file a motion to dismiss, if they so choose.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. VACATED AND REMANDED

_________________________________________________________________ *Gant filed his petition and the district court ruled on it before the amendments to § 1915 were made under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) ("PLRA" or "the Act"). 2
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-163322 and No. 333-150293 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 31, 2010 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of American Apparel,Inc. and our report dated March 31, 2010 relating to internal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of American Apparel, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting because ofmaterial weaknesses) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Apparel, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Los Angeles, California 

March 31, 2010
# L_2022178EN.01000101.xml

| 5.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 178/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/1106

of 27 June 2022

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Queso de Acehúche’ (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Queso de Acehúche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Queso de Acehúche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Queso de Acehúche’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Queso de Acehúche’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Queso de Acehúche’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. – Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 June 2022.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 108, 7.3.2022, p. 2.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
H. Res. 681 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 10, 2018. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 140) to 

amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights 

Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts in 

the WMAT Settlement Fund. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature 

of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 

Print 115–54 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 

amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 

as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 

debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce and the chair and ranking minority mem-
2 

•HRES 681 EH 

ber of the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
A89A1923.

#### HORN et al. v. SMITH & MERONEY, P.C. et al.

(390 SE2d 272)

Carley, Chief Judge.

When George Horn died in an airplane crash, he was survived by his wife and by appellant-plaintiffs, his parents. His wife secured the legal services of appellee-defendants to bring a wrongful death action. After the wrongful death claim was settled, appellants filed this legal malpractice action against appellees, alleging a deviation from the applicable standard of care in pursuing the wrongful death claim. Appellees answered and subsequently moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted appellees’ motion and appellants appeal.

1. ‘““It is generally held that an attorney-client relationship must be demonstrated before a plaintiff may recover in a legal malpractice suit. . . . This is essential in establishing the element of duty that is necessary to every lawsuit based upon a theory of negligence. . . .” Accordingly, the threshold question in the case sub judice is whether or not there was an attorney-client relationship’ between the appellants and [appellees]. [Cit.]” *Moore v. Harris,*188 Ga. App. 251, 252 (372 SE2d 654) (1988).

“The relationship of attorney-client may be expressly created by written contract, or may be inferred from the conduct of the parties. [Cit.] Although ‘(g)enerally, the test of employment is the fee,’ [cits.], *299the basic question in regard to the formation of the attorney-client relationship is whether it has been sufficiently established that advice or assistance of the attorney is both sought and received in matters pertinent to his profession. [Cit.]” *Huddleston v. State,*259 Ga. 45, 46-47 (1) (376 SE2d 683) (1989). In their depositions, appellants acknowledged that they never paid any legal fees to appellees and never sought any legal advice from them. Likewise, appellants never informed appellees that they were relying upon them for legal advice, and they admit that they have always understood that appellees were the legal representatives of their son’s widow. Except for one brief period of time, appellants have been represented by counsel of their own choosing in connection with their legal rights as surviving parents of their deceased son. Thus, “[t]he evidence demanded a finding that no attorney-client relationship existed, ... in the classic sense of the term. [Cit.]” *Moore v. Harris,*supra at 252-253. It follows that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of appellees.

Decided January 8, 1990

Rehearing denied January 23, 1990

George Horn, *pro se.*

Ferrell Horn, *pro se.*

*Arnall, Golden & Gregory, Karen B. Bragman, Jeffery M. Smith,*for appellees.

2. Appellants’ remaining enumerations of error have been considered and found to be either moot or without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
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 Waste Industries USA, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
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 as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ D. Stephen GrissomChief Financial OfficerApril 13, 2005
EXHIBIT 13.2 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 of Aquasol EnviroTech Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yenyou (Jeff) Zheng, Chief Financial 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: (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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Yenyou (Jeff) ZhengYenyou (Jeff) Zheng, Chief Financial Officer, President and Director August 31, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 681 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 681

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 10, 2018.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (S. 140) to amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe 
Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts in the 
WMAT Settlement Fund. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of 
Rules Committee Print 115-54 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce and the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Document




February 24, 2021
Mr. William F. Doyle
c/o Novocure USA LLC
195 Commerce Way
Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801


Dear Mr. Doyle:


The purpose of this letter amendment (this “Amendment”) is to amend certain terms set forth the letter agreement dated as of May 16, 2016 (the “Agreement”) between you and Novocure USA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”) regarding your employment with the Company and to agree to other matters. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.


The Company and you agree that the last sentence of Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows, “You will carry out your day-to-day activities hereunder in an office of the Company to be located in the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area.”  Further, the Company and agree that for purposes of the definition of “Good Reason” set forth in Section 6(e)(iv) of the Agreement, the “location” referred to therein shall refer to the Company’s office at 195 Commerce Way, Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801.


Further, the Company and you agree that the vesting dates for tranche of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) of the Company granted to you on February 27, 2018 that are scheduled to vest on February 27, 2021 and the tranche of RSUs of the Company granted to you on March 22, 2019 that are scheduled to vest on March 5, 2021, are hereby amended, and such RSUs tranches will collectively vest instead on March 31, 2021. No other tranches or grants are affected.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the dates set forth below.


NOVOCURE USA LLC


By:______________________
Name: Wilco Groenhuysen 
Title: Chief Operating Officer


EXECUTIVE
By:______________________
Name: William F. Doyle
Dated:
1
September 17, 1957

No. 61212.

protests 276953-K, etc.

#### Pivar Goodman Corp. *v.*United States,

Protests abandoned July 31, 1957. (Not published.) (Initial No. 200403-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. 55106.

#### Cargill, Incorporated *v.*United States,

protest 154852-K (Duluth).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
ISSUE DATE: 5/09/2011 

PROGRAM INFORMATION BULLETIN NO. P11-35 

FROM: GEORGE M. FESAK

 Director, Program Evaluation 

 and Information Resources

 KEVIN G. STRICKLIN

 Administrator for

 Coal Mine Safety and Health

 NEAL H. MERRIFIELD

 Administrator for

 Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health

 

SUBJECT: Re-Issue P08-02 -- Reporting Deaths on Mine Property

Scope

This program information bulletin (PIB) applies to mine operators, independent 

contractors, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) personnel, and other 

interested persons.

Purpose

This PIB clarifies the responsibility of mine operators and contractors to report all 

deaths that occur on mine property, including suicides, homicides, and deaths

involving trespassers, customers, or visitors. 

Information

Section 30 CFR 50.10, Immediate Notification, requires the operator to contact MSHA at 

once, without delay, and within 15 minutes at the toll-free number, 1-800-746-1553, once 
2

the operator knows or should know that an accident has occurred. Section 

30 CFR 50.2 (h) (1), Definitions, defines “accident” to include a death of an individual at 

a mine. In addition to immediately contacting MSHA, operators are required to submit 

a Mine Accident, Injury, and Illness Report (Form 7000-1) to MSHA within 10 days of 

the accident. It makes no difference whether the deceased is a mine employee, visitor, 

trespasser, or customer. MSHA must be immediately notified of any death of an 

individual at a mine and the death must be reported to MSHA on Form 7000-1 within 

10 days. 

Background

There have been numerous occasions when operators have not filed the required Mine 

Accident, Injury, and Illness Report (Form 7000-1) because they believed a death, 

particularly a death involving a trespasser on mine property, to be non-chargeable and 

therefore not reportable. This can cause the operator to be in violation of 30 CFR Part 50 

reporting requirements.

Authority

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and 

30 CFR Part 50. 

Internet Availability

This PIB may be viewed by accessing MSHA's home page at (www.msha.gov), 

choosing "Compliance Info" and "Program Information Bulletins."

Contact Person(s)

Terry Bentley

Coal Mine Safety and Health

E-mail: Bentley.Terry@dol.gov 

Michael Hancher 

Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health

E-mail: Hancher.Michael@dol.gov 

Thomas Koenning

Program Evaluation and Information Resources

E-mail: Koenning.Thomas@dol.gov 

Distribution

MSHA Program Policy Manual Holders

Mine Operators and Independent Contractors

Mine Safety and Health Administration Personnel

Special Interest Groups
AMENDMENT #1 TO THE
LANCE N. KRAJACIC, JR.
EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 THIS AMENDMENT BANK OF BIRMINGHAM. LANCE N. KRAJACIC, JR.
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1.
    
    The following sentence is added to the end of Paragraph 4 of the Agreement:Reimbursement under this Paragraph 4 shall be made in accordance with the Banks expense
reimbursement policies, but in no event later than the last day of the calendar year following
the calendar year in which the expenses are incurred. Reimbursement under this Paragraph 4
shall not affect the expenses eligible for reimbursement in any other calendar year and cannot
be liquidated or exchanged for any other benefit.2.
    
    The second paragraph of Paragraph 31 is amended as follows:
  3.
    
    Paragraph 32 is amended as follows:




---



##### 



4.
    
    The a third paragraph of Paragraph 32 is amended as follows:
  5.
    
    A new subsection (g) is added to Paragraph 33 as follows:
  6.
    
    The following is added to the end Paragraph 34 of the Agreement:In no event shall payments be made under this Paragraph 34, unless the Executive has incurred a
Separation from Service as defined Section 409A and the Final Regulations promulgated
thereunder. In addition, notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, if at the
time of a termination of this Agreement, (i) Executive is a specified employee as defined in
Section 409A, and the regulations and guidance thereunder in effect at the time of such
termination, and, (ii) any of the payments or benefits provided hereunder may constitute
deferred compensation under Section 409A, then, and only to the extent required by such
provisions, the date of payment of such payments or benefits otherwise provided shall be
delayed until the earlier of six (6) months following the date of termination or Executives
death. Any such payment or series of payments to be made due to a Separation from Service shall
commence no earlier than the first day of the seventh month following the Separation from
Service, provided that to the extent permitted by Section 409A of the Code, only payments
scheduled to be paid during the first 6 months after the date of such Separation from Service
shall be delayed and such delayed payments shall be paid in a single sum on the first day of
the seventh month following the date of such Separation from Service.
 2




---



##### 



7.
    
    A new Paragraph 54 is added to the Agreement as follows:
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 BANK OF BIRMINGHAM
    
    
    
    LANCE N. KRAJACIC, JR.By:
    
    /s/ Robert E. Farr
    
    
    
    /s/ Lance N. Krajacic, Jr.Robert E. Farr, President & CEO
 3
| | KPMG LLP                      | Telephone | (416) 777-8500 | 
| | ----------------------------- | --------- | -------------- | 
| | Chartered Accountants         | Fax       | (416) 777-8818 | 
| | Bay Adelaide Centre           | Internet  | www.kpmg.ca    | 
| | 333 Bay Street Suite
    4600 |           |                | 
| | Toronto ON M5H -2S5           |           |                | 





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors Jaguar Mining
Inc.



We consent to the inclusion in this annual
report on Form 40-F of:



| | · | our
Independent Auditors’ Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 21, 2013 on the consolidated balance sheets
of Jaguar Mining Inc. as at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, and the related consolidated statements of operations
and comprehensive loss, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011;
and
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | · | our
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 21, 2013 on Jaguar Mining Inc.’s internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2012,
| | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



each of which is contained in this annual report on Form 40-F of Jaguar Mining Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the above mentioned reports into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-144969) of Jaguar Mining Inc.







Chartered
Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants
Toronto, Canada

March 22, 2013