alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 70147 

# FILED
MAY 1 1 2016

SY MAN

f li cl i REf 

## t

- 

# HMS' (0) 1947A 944p4,9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

WILLIAM ERRICO, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND WILLIAM ERRICO AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., A NEVADA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Petitioners, 

## vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and MICHAEL C. VAN, ESQ. AS SUCCESSOR GUARDIAN OF THEESTATE FOR WILFRED RICHARDJAMES BOSSERMAN, Real Party in Interest. 

### ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a January 2016 order denying a motion to dismiss in a legal malpractice action and an August 2015 order denying a motion to stay the proceedings in that same action.

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. 

### Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); 

### Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). With respect to the January 2016 order, and assuming without deciding that petitioners' NRS 11.250 arguments have merit, dismissal of the action would still not be warranted because the record does not "irrefutably demonstrate [I" that Mr.

SUPREME COUFrr OF NEVADASaitta

Bosserman's claims accrued in December 2010. See Winn v. Sunrise Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 128 Nev. 246, 253, 277 P.3d 458, 463 (2012) (recognizing that the date on which a cause of action accrues is normally a question of fact and that "[d]ismissal on statute of limitations grounds is only appropriate when uncontroverted evidence irrefutably demonstrates plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the facts giving rise to the cause of action" (quotation omitted)). We also note that the district court did not dismiss the November 2013 complaint.

With respect to the August 2015 order, petitioners have not explained their delay in seeking writ relief, nor have they provided any documentation regarding the status of Mr. Errico's criminal proceeding so that this court could meaningfully determine whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a stay. NRAP 21(a)(4); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; see Aspen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 57, 289 P.3d 201, 205-06 (2012) (reviewing a district court's denial of a stay for an abuse of discretion and recognizingthat "[d]etermining whether to grant such a stay is a fact-intensive, caseby-case determination"). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED. 1

frea.4; Hardesty

Pickering
'In light of our disposition of this writ petition, petitioners' April 13, 2016, motion for a stay is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947Acc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Johnson & Gubler, P.C. Shumway Van & Hansen Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A 

### e
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT 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 MFIC Corporation (the Company)on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), theundersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                        | By:    | /s/   Irwin J. Gruverman |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Name:  | Irwin J. Gruverman            |
|                        | Title: | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                        |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                        |   |                          |
| Dated:  April 29, 2005 |   |                          |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21321]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-2463-000]


Fitchburg Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Filing

August 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 1, 1997, Fitchburg Gas & Electric 
Company tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced 
docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 20, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21321 Filed 8-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.2

                            FORM 10-QSB CERTIFICATION

         I, Walter Tatum, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Cyberads,
Inc. for the quarter ending June 30, 2005;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Cyberads, Inc. as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for Cyberads, Inc. and have:

         A. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to Cyberads, Inc., including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         B. Not Required.

         C. Evaluated the effectiveness of Cyberads, Inc.'s disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         D. Not Required.

         5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         A. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect Cyberads, Inc.'s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         B. Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees who have a significant  role in  Cyberads, Inc.'s
internal control over financial reporting.


Date: January 30, 2006           CYBERADS, INC.

                                 By: /s/ WALTER TATUM
                                 --------------------------
                                 Walter Tatum
                                 Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-219]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-205-000]


Sabine Pipe Line Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 31, 1996.
    Take notice that on December 24, 1996, Sabine Pipe Line Company 
(Sabine) tendered for filing as part of its FERC gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets proposed to 
be effective January 1, 1997:

Title Page
1st Rev Original Sheet No. 245
Original Sheet No. 248A
1st Rev Original Sheet No. 265
    Sabine states that it is submitting the referenced tariff sheets to 
comply with Order No. 582 issued September 28, 1995, in Docket No. 
RM95-3-000. The tariff revisions include a statement of Sabine's rate 
discount policy (Tariff Sheet No. 248A) and other miscellaneous 
compliance changes.
    Sabine respectfully requests that the Commission grant a waiver of 
Section 154.207 of its Regulations, and any other waivers that may be 
necessary, in order that the tariff sheets be made effective on January 
1, 1997 as proposed.
    Sabine states that copies of this filing are being mailed to its 
customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protect said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-219 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 99-7903.

#### Jones *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
NUMBER 13-19-00499-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ANDREW CONTRERAS AND 

MARTHA ANN CONTRERAS, Appellants,

v.

DREAM HOME RENOVATORS, LLC, Appellee.

On appeal from County Court at Law

No. 10 of Bexar County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court due to appellants failure to arrange with the trial 

court reporter to timely file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record in this cause was 

originally due to be filed on October 29, 2019. This Court notified appellants of the 

untimely record, by letter on December 4, 2019. Additionally, appellants have failed to 
2

timely file a docketing statement. 

This sequence of events requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further 

delay and to preserve the parties’ rights. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(a)(1). Accordingly, this 

appeal is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court.

Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given 

and conduct a hearing to determine whether appellants have abandoned their appeal. If 

it is determined that appellants have not abandoned his appeal, the court shall further 

determine if appellants’ attorney of record continues to represent appellants and will 

diligently pursue this appeal. 

The court shall further determine if the reporter’s record, or any part thereof, has 

been lost or destroyed, and shall make appropriate findings under Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f), 

if necessary. Otherwise, the court shall determine what steps are necessary to ensure 

the prompt preparation of a reporter's record and shall enter any orders required to avoid 

further delay and to preserve the parties’ rights. 

The trial court shall prepare and file its findings and orders and cause them to be 

included in a supplemental clerk's record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this 

Court within thirty days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

20th day of February, 2020.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11984-11985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05090]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 
public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, March 25, 2015, 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Atomic Testing Museum, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las 
Vegas, Nevada 89119.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 
232 Energy Way, M/S 505, North Las

[[Page 11985]]

Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 630-0522; Fax (702) 295-5300 or 
Email: NSSAB@nnsa.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda:

    1. Briefing and Recommendation Development for Corrective Action 
Alternatives for Corrective Action Unit 568, Area 3 Plutonium 
Dispersion Sites--Work Plan Item #2
    2. Briefing and Recommendation Development for Fiscal Year 2017 
Baseline Prioritization--Work Plan Item #7

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance 
of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every 
effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special 
needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, 
please contact Barbara Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the 
meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be 
filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals 
who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should 
contact Barbara Ulmer at the telephone number listed above. The request 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting 
in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Individuals wishing to make public comments can do so during the 15 
minutes allotted for public comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at 
the address listed above or at the following Web site: http://nv.energy.gov/nssab/MeetingMinutes.aspx

    Issued at Washington, DC, on February 26, 2015.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-05090 Filed 3-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### The ESTATE of James A. ALLEN, Deceased, Appellant, v. DUVAL COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Appellee.

No. GG-224.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 17, 1978.

Richard Lovett Brown, Jacksonville, for appellant.

E. Robert Williams, of Boyd, Jenerette, Leemis & Staas, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *Aldana*v. *Holub et al.,*354 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). See also *Perkins v. Pare,*352 So.2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

McCORD, C. J., BOYER, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Valley Commerce
Bancorp (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of Donald A. Gilles, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and Roy O. Estridge, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1) The 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


          Date: August 14, 2006           /s/ Donald A. Gilles
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Donald A. Gilles
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer




          Date: August 14, 2006           /s/ Roy O. Estridge
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Roy O. Estridge
                                          Chief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of ss. 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.


                                       33
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 24

- 10517

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
JOZADAQUE RODRIGUES DA SILVA, SIMONE LOPES RODRIGUES DA SILVA, JULIA RHAYALLA LOPES RODRIGUES DA SILVA, RHARYSSON PABLO LOPES RODRIGUES DA SILVA,
Petitioners,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-10517 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2024 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 24

- 10517

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigr ation Appeals Agency No. A098

- 713

- 850

____________________
Before J ILL P RYOR , B RANCH , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners Jozadaque Rodrigues Da Silva and Simone Lopes Rodrigues Da Silva, proceeding pro se and on behalf of their minor children
, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ December 8, 2023 de c ision. That decision dismissed their appeal fromthe immigration judge’s order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nation sConvention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

. The statutory time limit required petitioners to file a petition for review on or before January 8, 2024, which was the first business day following 30 days after the December 8, 2023 decision

. See INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 15(a)(1)
, 26(a)(1) ( C); Chao Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 677 F.3d 1043, 1045

- 46 (11thCir. 2012) (noting that the statutory time limit is mandatory, jurisdictional, and not subject to equitable tolling). However, Petitioners did not file t h eir petition until February 21, 2024

. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review it. Accordingly, t his appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte , for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No USCA11 Case: 24-10517 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2024 Page: 2 of 324

- 10517 Opinion of the Court 3
petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40

- 3 and all other applicable rules. USCA11 Case: 24-10517 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2024 Page: 3 of 3
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA employee describes resiliency in face of physical challenges

By Cathy Hopkins DLA Aviation Public Affairs

                RICHMOND, Va.  –              *(Note: This article is the fourth in a series of four on how DLA Aviation employees use the building blocks of resiliency to succeed in their professional and personal lives.)*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Stories

Resiliency toolkit explored during Senior Leader Conference

Lunchtime speaker shares deployment experience as lesson in resiliency

Resiliency helps wounded warrior return to workforce

DLA AviationSLCResiliency
#### Willie WALKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1907.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Kurt Mamar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Foley v. Revlon, Inc.,*200 So.2d 627, 629-30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); *Mizell v. New Kingsley Beach, Inc.,*122 So.2d 225, 226-27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).