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

No. 19
- 7850

DAVID MEYERS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. J. ELY; LIEUTENANT LIGHT; SERGEANT J. R. COLEMAN; M. R. SLUSS; T. B. SMITH; SERGEANT S. COLLINS; LIEUTENANT HUGHES; MAJOR ANDERSON, Assistant Warden; OFFICER COX; OFFICER BAKER; OFFICER CRAFT; OFFICER CHANDLER; OFFICER HARVEY; JOHN DOE; C. MANIS; FRANKS, IHO; B. RAVIZEE; A. VANHUSS; OFFICER HENLY; K. M. FLEMING; HARRIS, Intel Officer; RIVERO, Intel Officer; LIGHT, Intel Offic er; F. SANTOS; M. WILLIAMS; JAMES ELLIS; BOOTH, Records Manager; MARCUS ELAM, Western Regional Administrator; KIM CROWDER, Western Regional Ombudsman; JEFFREY KISER; B. ARTRIP; JOE FANNIN; PAMELA ASHBROOK; W. SWINEY; PAUL HAYNES, Western Regional Operation s Manager; WALLENS RIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY; BI YOUNG, Counselor; C. CAUGHRON, Counselor , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 7:19

- cv
- 00605

- NKM

- JCH )

Submitted : February 13, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: David Meyers seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order referring the complaint for an evidentiary hearing and precluding Meyers from filing any further motions or documents until the magistrate judge issu es his report and recommendation. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (201 8 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (201 8 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Meyers seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny as moot Meyers’ motion for leave to proceed on appeal under the Prison Litigation Reform Act without prepayment of fees and 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 proce ss.
DISMISSED
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Joshua Jacobs

No. 06

- 22

- 00054

- CR Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief

Justice Morriss

, Justice Stevens and Justice

Carter* participating

. *Justice Ca rter, Retired, Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED APRIL 22, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF J USTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
FILED

August 8, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON

 

ROBERT COX, Administrator of ) 

the Estate of Linda Cox Johnson, )

Deceased, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, )

) Madison Law No. C-92-245 

vs. )

)

GENERAL CARE CORP. d/b/a HCA ) Appeal No. 

REGIONAL HOSPITAL OF ) 02A01-9412-CV-00269

JACKSON, BEVERLYANN JETTON, )

NURSE, SHEWANNA MACKEY, )

RECEPTIONIST, and JOSEPH RAGON )

M.D., )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

 

ORDER

 

Appellant has filed a Motion to Rehear Pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of

Appellate Procedure. In the Motion, Appellant contends that the Opinion of this Court was

based on an incorrect application of the law. Noting that the Opinion states that neither

Appellant’s original Complaint or the proposed Amended Complaint allege negligence with

respect to laboratory tests conducted on the deceased, Appellant asserts that he was erroneously

required to state a legal theory, not simply “facts from which a legal theory can be inferred.” 

Rule 8.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure states that a pleading setting forth a

claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief . . . .” The original Complaint and the proposed Amended Complaint fail to

state facts setting forth a claim for relief with respect to the laboratory tests. 

Consequently, upon consideration, the Motion to Rehear is denied. Costs are taxed to the

Appellant for which execution may issue if necessary.

Entered this day of July, 1996.

 

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.

 

W. FRANK CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S.

 

 ALAN E. HIGHERS, J.
No. 76-108.

#### McDannald *v.*League City.

Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GONZALES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1064 FCD CMK P

vs.

S. PALAGUMMI, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On May 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. That document

was not served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted to the court for

consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Documents not to be served

electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. If an attorney has filed a

document with the court on behalf of any defendant, then documents submitted by plaintiff must

be served on that attorney and not on the defendants. Every document submitted conventionally

to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must include a certificate stating the date an

accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants or their attorney and the address to

which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days from the date of

this order plaintiff shall serve a copy of plaintiff’s May 27, 2005 notice of change of address on

Case 2:04-cv-01064-FCD-CMK Document 63 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

counsel for defendants and shall file proper proof of said service. Plaintiff is cautioned that

failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff is further

cautioned that failure to serve any documents subsequently filed in this action properly, and

failure to include a proper certificate of service with such filing, may result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed.

DATED: June 6, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

gonz1064.35a 

Case 2:04-cv-01064-FCD-CMK Document 63 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28997]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

42 CFR Parts 417, 422, and 423

[CMS-4144-CN]
RIN 0938-AQ00

Medicare Program; Proposed Changes to the Medicare Advantage and 
the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for Contract Year 2012 
and Other Proposed Changes; Correction

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION: Correction of proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document corrects a technical error that appeared in the 
proposed rule entitled ``Medicare Program; Proposed Changes to the 
Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs 
for Contract Year 2012 and Other Proposed Changes'' which was filed for 
public inspection on November 10, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sabrina Ahmed, (410) 786-7499.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    In FR Doc. 2010-28774 filed November 10, 2010, there was a 
technical error that is identified and corrected in the Correction of 
Errors section below.

II. Summary of Errors

    In the DATES section, we inadvertently requested that the Office of 
the Federal Register base the comment period closing date on the date 
the proposed rule will appear in the Federal Register instead of the 
date of filing for public inspection. Therefore, in section III. of 
this correction notice, we correct this error by inserting the date 
that the comment period closes, which is January 11, 2011.

III. Waiver of 60-Day Comment Period

    We ordinarily permit a 60-day comment period on notices of proposed 
rulemaking in the Federal Register, as provided in section 1871(b)(1) 
of the Act. The change made by this correction notice does not 
constitute agency rulemaking, and therefore the 60-day comment period 
does not apply. This correction notice merely corrects a technical 
error in the proposed rule and does not make substantive changes to the 
proposed rule that would require additional time on which to comment. 
Instead, this correction notice is intended to ensure the accuracy of 
the proposed rule.

IV. Correction of Errors

    In FR Doc. 2010-28774 filed November 10, 2010, make the following 
correction:
    1. In the DATES section, the phrase ``[OFR--insert date 60 days 
after date of publication in the Federal Register]'' is corrected to 
read ``January 11, 2011.''

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, 
Medicare--Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare--
Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)

    Dated: November 12, 2010.
Barbara J. Holland,
Deputy Executive Secretary to the Department.
[FR Doc. 2010-28997 Filed 11-12-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
```
No. 57722.

#### S. Beilin *v.*United States,

protest 207977-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 47911.

#### Protests 28296-K, etc., of V. W. Davis (Duluth).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391) the protests claiming that no addition should have been made for planing, tonguing, and/or grooving were sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (the Registrant) for the
quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of
the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ LEO F. WELLS, III                                        
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer November 14, 2005  
|                                                             
|/s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                      
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer November 14, 2005
No. 55280.

#### Peter Paul, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 151010-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### Diane Maier, Appellant, v Howard Maier et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 165]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered November 23, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff and defendant signed an agreement settling their matrimonial action, after financial issues were fully explored during discovery, and each party was advised by experienced counsel and business valuation experts. The agreement acknowledged that full financial disclosure had taken place, that there had been full investigation of assets by attorneys and financial experts through "extensive financial documentation” and examination before trial, that each party waived further disclosure, and that the agreement was intended as "a full, final and irrevocable settlement”.

Plaintiff did not submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment. It is clear that the terms of the settlement agreement were reached on the basis of the valuation of a business asset as of September 1992, when the matrimonial action was commenced (see, *Greenwald v Greenwald,*164 AD2d 706, 716, *lv denied*78 NY2d 855), and not December 1993, when the agreement was signed. In light of the acknowledgements in the agreement respecting full disclosure and the aid of counsel and experts, and the circumstance that representations of estimated valuation of the business by defendant were made in the course of adversarial proceedings, there could not have been any reasonable reliance by plaintiff on the business evaluation presented by defendant, and thus there was no fraud *(see, Lazich v Vittoria & Parker,*189 AD2d 753, *appeal dismissed*81 NY2d 1006). For the same reasons, there was no issue of fact as to breach of fiduciary duty or overreaching. The agreement was fair to both parties, and certainly was not so one-sided as to shock the conscience. Therefore, it may not be set aside as unconscionable *(see, McCaughey v McCaughey,*205 AD2d 330). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00332

- CV

Manuel and Simona CAMACHO

, Appellants

v.

TEXAS WESTCHESTER FINANCIAL, LLC

, Appellee

From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4246

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellants Manuel Camacho

and Simo na Camacho.

SIGNED October 14, 2015.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice
inbit_102.htm

EXHIBIT 10.2
 
October 26, 2016
 
To the Boards of Directors of INBIT CORP, a Nevada Corporation
 
	Re:	 Resignation from Officer and Director Positions


 
I Viktor Zeziulia hereby resign from the offices of President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer effective today, October 26, 2016.
 
I also resign from the Board of Directors, but such resignation from the Board is not effective until Ten (10) days following the mailing of the Company’s Schedule 14-F Information Statement to the Company’s shareholders of record. 
 
Such resignation from the Board shall take place automatically following the tenth day after such mailing without any further action on my part. Until then, I shall continue to serve as a member of the Board of Directors to help facilitate the appointment of new officers and directors for the Company.
 
I confirm that at the time of my resignation no disagreement exists between me and INBIT CORP.
 
Sincerely,
 
/s/ Viktor Zeziulia                                    
Viktor Zeziulia
From: Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>

To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/28/2010 09:59 AM

Subject: Vinyl Institute Updated Concentration Data Base for PVC Resin

Dear Ms. Howard,

Late last week it came to my attention that I incorrectly used PolyOne’s

original resin test data submittal reported in pounds per day (dry) as

their concentration data for the Vinyl Institute’s September 16, 2010

submission of its Concentration Data Base. I received PolyOne’s resin

concentration data for their two plants last Friday and I have replaced

the mass data with the correct concentration data in ppm. Please use

this version of the VI’s spreadsheets for any future estimations or

determinations in establishing the PVC MACT rule. Please do not

hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you for the

opportunity to submit this corrected information.

Regards,

Richard Krock

Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute

1737 King Street Suite 390

Alexandria, VA 22314

Direct: 571.970.3392

Mobile: 571.216.4474

Fax: 571.970.3271

Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylindesign.com(See attached file: VI PVC Industry Resin

Concentration Data Aggregation for EPA 09-28-10.xls)
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 m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gabriel Kabazo, Chief
Financial Officer, 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
comply 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/ Gabriel KabazoGabriel
      Kabazo, Chief Financial OfficerDated:
      November 22, 2010
No. 46159.

#### Petition 5903-R of Spanish Book *&*Stationery Co. (San Antonio).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

' The petitioner was unable to produce sufficient evidence at the trial to establish that the entry was made without intent to defraud or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. A continuance was granted to enable the petitioner to obtain the. necessary proof, but there was no appearance on the part of the petitioner when the case was called. The petition was therefore denied.
No. 58052.

protest 173170-K (Tampa).

#### Humphrey & MacGregor (Acrow, Inc.) *v.*United States,

*476Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of building shores the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 57727, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 51739.

#### Protests 555644-G, etc., of Merrill, Clark & Meinig, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the •same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional •duty applicable under paragraph 924, was sustained.
SERVED: Aprill, 2014 .::~:~T ~·r· .. -.: i ~ ', ·-' ; { 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BOTTON ENTERPRISES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED]. 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013- 1081 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

-2 :~--) '""f. j 0 

[_- .:..: () 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Agency") has filed a Motion to 

Deem Allegations Admitted dated March 28, 2014. 

Rotten Enterprises (hereinafter "Respondent") filed a Request for Hearing dated 

February 6, 2014. The Agency avers in its motion that Respondent has failed to Answer 

the Complaint within the time allowed. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted having 

been read and considered it _be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. On or before May 2, 2014, Respondent shall file a response to this Order 

stating why the relief requested in the Agency's Motion should not be granted; and 

2. On or before May 2, 2014, Respondent shall answer the Complaint; and 

3. On or before May 2, 2014, Respondent shall fully comply with our 

Procedural Order; and 

4. Absent full and complete responses to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 hereinabove, 

Respondent may be sanctioned including, but not limited to, allegations in the Complaint 

may be deemed admitted; and/or Respondent may be precluded from introducing any 

evidence at the hearing other than his own testimony; and/or Respondent's Request for 

Hearing may be dismissed; and/or a Default Judgment may be entered against 

Respondent in the full amount of the fine requested by the Agency in its Complaint. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Ashok Vij, President/CEO 

Horton Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a/ Premier Aviation, Respondent 

1951 East Airport Drive 

Tucson, AZ 85756 

TEL: 520-907-8926 

FAX: NOT PROVIDED 

Adam Runkel, Complainant's Counsel 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-1081 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Western-Pacific Region, APW-7.12 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 425-227-2914 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
Exhibit 23


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We have issued our report dated  September 7, 2005 (except for Notes A and F(a),
as to which the date is  September  28,  2005),  accompanying  the  consolidated
financial  statements  and  schedule  included  in the  Annual  Report  of  Jaco
Electronics,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2005. We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference of said report in
the Registration  Statements of Jaco Electronics,  Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form
S-8/S-3  (File  No.   33-89994,   effective   March  3,  1995),  as  amended  by
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement of Jaco Electronics
on Form S-8/S-3 (File No. 333-49873, effective April 10, 1998), the Registration
Statement of Jaco  Electronics,  Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8/S-3 (File No.
333-49877,  effective  April 10,  1998) and the  Registration  Statement of Jaco
Electronics,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  on Form  S-8/S-3  (File  No.  333-111065,
effective December 10, 2003).



/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
----------------------
GRANT THORNTON LLP


Melville, New York
September 7, 2005