alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 94-5777 CHRISTOPHER WAYNE CHAMBERS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-29-P) Submitted: January 28, 1997 Decided: February 24, 1997 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM:Christopher Wayne Chambers pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain to conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1996). He was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. The district court imposed a $3000 fine. Chambers's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one potential jurisdictional claim but concludingthat there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Chambers was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We affirm.Counsel claims that the district court should not have asserted jurisdiction over Chambers because he was not yet eighteen years old during his early participation in the conspiracy. But counsel concedes that Chambers was eighteen when he committed some overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is a continuing crime, and the fact that Chambers may have become involved in the conspiracybefore his eighteenth birthday does not protect him from being prosecuted as an adult as long as his participation continued after his eighteenth birthday. United States v. Spoone , 741 F.2d 680, 687 (4th Cir. 1984). Therefore, this claim lacks merit. In accordance with Anders , we have examined the entire record in this case and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the conviction and sentence. We deny counsel's motion towithdraw at this time. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the record and briefs, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON. D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD FAADOCKET NO. (2012-GL-03-0012) FDMS NO. (FAA-2013-0046) (Civil PenaltyAction) 

# RECEIVED DEC 03**201~** 

## HEARING DOCKET

MOTION IN SUPPORT OF TRANS NORTH AVIATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS The Complainant files this Motion in Support ofTrans North Aviation's Motionto Dismiss, concurring withRespondent's request for anorder dismissing this action in its entirety withprejudice. WHEREFORE, the Administratorrespectfully requests anorder dismissing this action in its entirety withprejudice.

Date: December 3, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

Attorney Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Telephone: (202) 267-7395 Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 jessica.kabaz-gomez@faa.govCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that onthis date I sent by hand-carried personal delivery (original), and by fax (copy), the Motion in Support ofTrans North Aviation's Motion to Dismiss in the matter ofTrans NorthAviation, LTD, FAA Docket No. 2012-GL-03-0012 to: Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Fax: (202) 493-5142 and (202) 493-5020
In addition, I hereby certifY that on this date I have sent by fax (copy), the foregoing document to: Paul R. Borth Barnett & Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025 Fax: (815) 356-7042

Dated: December 3, 2014
#### John H. Faunce, New York, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7306.

Invoices dated London, England, April 21, 1942, etc.

Certified April 24, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 25, 1942, etc.

Entry No. 701921, etc.

(Decided June 23, 1947)

*Sharretls & Hillis (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AD CHIEF FINANCIAL
  OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Steven Vestergaard, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A  of Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. for
  the year ended August 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
  the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents,
  in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
  of Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. (the Company)





| | By:    | /s/ Steve
      Vestergaard
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | Name:  | STEVEN VESTERGAARD         
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | March 12, 2010             



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
  and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on
  Form 10-K/A . A signed original of this statement 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
    10-K/A  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
  except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
  purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 10934, as amended (the
  Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated
  by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
  the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
  it by reference.

---
No. 56039.

protest 121360-K (Tampa).

#### R. U. Delapenha & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
#### In the Matter of Eugene D. Raponi et al„ Respondents, v Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 243]

—Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered November 14, 1994 in Sullivan County, which granted petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5), to apportion settlement proceeds.

*787While in the course of his employment, petitioner Eugene D. Raponi (hereinafter Raponi) was involved in a motor vehicle accident on May 2, 1991 in which he suffered catastrophic injuries, rendering him a quadriplegic. Raponi commenced a personal injury action against the owner and operator of the other vehicle, joined in the action by his wife, petitioner Marcia Raponi (hereinafter petitioner), who sought damages for loss of consortium. The action was settled for an unapportioned $100,000, the full amount of the liability insurance coverage available in the personal injury action. Respondents, who provide Raponi with workers’ compensation benefits relating to his injuries, consented to the settlement but declined to release their lien.

Petitioners commenced this proceeding to apportion the settlement proceeds, seeking to provide petitioner with the bulk of the settlement. After a hearing in which respondents called no witnesses and relied only upon their cross-examination, Supreme Court found that the $100,000 settlement had to cover the several million dollars in damages suffered by both petitioners. The court also found that the substantial services being rendered by petitioner for and on behalf of her severely disabled husband were of a nature which, if not done by her on an unpaid basis, would have required significant workers’ compensation payments to provide. Weighing petitioner’s otherwise uncompensated loss against the insurer’s gain, Supreme Court concluded that she should receive the net proceeds of the limited fund. Respondents appeal.

Supreme Court has broad discretion in framing an order under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) consistent with the interests of the parties *(see, Schnabel v Grimes,*31 AD2d 375, 378). The record supports Supreme Court’s exercise of discretion in its apportionment of damages *(see, Matter of Manning v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*198 AD2d 561) where petitioner, as here, has been required to render services which if paid for by respondents would exceed the value of the settlement proceeds *(see, Matter of Haney v Schiavone Constr.,*195 AD2d 628).

In large measure, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 is designed to prevent an injury victim from receiving a double recovery *(see, Dietrick v Kemper Ins. Co. [American Motorists Ins. Co.],*76 NY2d 248, 252, 254). Such does not occur when a spouse receives an award for loss of services and respondents have no lien on the spouse’s award. While an apportionment of 100% of a settlement to a loss of services claim could be an area of abuse, where such a claim, in its own right, far exceeds the available funding, that potential is lessened.

*788Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
#### Eunice M. Morales, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Martha Medrano, et al., Respondents, v Felice Properties Corp. et al., Defendants, and Stuart Morgan et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 305]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered May 24, 1994, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to assert counterclaims against plaintiff natural guardian pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court, in denying leave to amend, correctly determined that the proposed counterclaims were merely a disingenuous attempt to assert a negligent supervision claim against plaintiff natural guardian in contravention of well-settled New York law, which recognizes that a claim for negligent supervision of a child, however worded, is not a viable cause of action cognizable at law *(Holodook v Spencer,*36 *182NY2d 35; *Franklin v Krumanocker,*114 AD2d 611). Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-2013 (h) (1) impose nondelegable duties upon defendants-appellants to keep their premises in good repair and to remove or cover lead paint therein *(Mas v Two Bridges Assocs.,*75 NY2d 680, 687; *Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team,*212 AD2d 38, 46). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The National Ambulatory MedicalCare Survey, ... summary, United States [electronic resource]**
 
1973 | 1975-81& 1985 | 1975 | 1977 | 1979
1989
1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1995-96
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.6209:13/
Item Number:0500-E (online)
CGP systemNumber:000635315
 
August 19, 2019
BARRY L. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
                        Certified Public Accountant


1582 TULITA DRIVE                           OFFICE (702) 361-8414
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89123                    FAX NO. (702) 896-0278


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


To Whom It May Concern:
                                                          January 11, 2000

     The  firm  of  Barry  L. Friedman, P.C., Certified  Public Accountant
consents  to  the inclusion of their report of January 11, 2000, on  the
Financial Statements of Navitec Group, Inc., (Formerly Paca Investments, Inc.),
as of December 31, 1999, in any filings  that are  necessary  now or  in the
near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.



Very truly yours,

/s/ Barry Friedman

Barry L. Friedman
Certified Public Accountant
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

KERRY LUGENE PARKER, et al.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2695 FCD GGH P

vs.

GEORGE STRATTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On March 29, 2005, the court issued an order addressing the original complaint. 

The court dismissed all claims but for the claims that defendant Shawesh violated plaintiff’s First

Amendment rights by telling other inmates that the Shia inmates attacked the Sunni inmates and

by refusing the request by Shia inmates for a place to worship. The court granted plaintiff thirty

days to file an amended complaint. Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not file an amended

complaint. Accordingly, the court now orders service of the claims against defendant Shawesh

described above.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant: Shawesh.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 1USM-285 form, one summons, an

instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed December 23, 2004.

Case 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 3
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

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3

above; and 

d. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed December 23, 2004. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: 6/9/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

park2695.1

Case 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KERRY LUGENE PARKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2695 FCD GGH P

vs.

GEORGE STRATTON, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 1 completed USM-285 forms

 2 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Thomas J. Hutchison III, Chief Executive Officer, certifies that (1) this Quarterly Report of CNL Income Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2)
the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, and its results of operations for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2004.



|                     |  |                             |  |                              
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                     |  | /s/ Thomas J. Hutchison III
|Date: August 3, 2004 |  | Name:                       |  | Thomas J. Hutchison III      
|                     |  | Title:                      |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  |                             |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
No. 47929.

Suit 4393.

#### *Pitman Publishing Corp.*v. *United States.*

affirmed Dec. 1, 1942. C. A. D. 222.
No. 64959.

#### D. Hauser, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 324278-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meat holders similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63928, except that they are in chief value of other base metal, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 54726.

#### Peek & Velsor, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 158453-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protest was dismissed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local

Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20521

Summary Calendar

RUSSELL DWAINE ABERLY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-193)

April 22, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Russell Dwaine Aberly appeals the dismissal of his second federal habeas

corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The trial court found abuse of the writ

under Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Aberly’s first federal

habeas petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, was dismissed with
2

prejudice. We affirmed that dismissal for lack of prosecution. The instant petition

again raisesthe ineffective assistance of counsel claim, adding an additional reason.

The trial court dismissed and denied a request for a certificate of probable cause.

We granted CPC.

Having considered the briefs and record, on the basis of the findings of fact,

authorities cited, and reasons assigned by the trial court in its Order rendered June

14, 1995 and entered June 15, 1995, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Christopher Naughton, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Marshall Edwards, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) ) for the registrantand have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within the entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared:  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in the report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of this disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: November 10, 2004   /s/CHRISTOPHER NAUGHTON     Christopher Naughton   Chief Executive Officer