alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/2/97 TENTH CIRCUIT
MARJORIE SANDERS,

Plaintiff, and LINDA SANDERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-1235 (D.C. No. 95-S-906) (D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , LOGAN and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the1 Linda Sanders’ mother, Marjorie Sanders, was also a plaintiff below but does not

appeal. - 2 - determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Linda Sanders appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her 1 action against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The complaint alleged that the IRS improperly sold plaintiff’s residence; plaintiff sought restitution and damages under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7426 and 7433. The district court found the claim was barred by collateral estoppel. We have reviewed the briefs and the record and are satisfied that the district courtaccurately summarized the facts and correctly applied the law. We cannot add significantly to the analysis of the district court in its order of April 3, 1996, and AFFIRM for substantially the reasons stated therein. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court James K. Logan Circuit Judge
Opinion filed Februar y 4 , 2 010


### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 02 89 -CV

____ ____ __ IN RE A NGE LA RU TH OLS ON ORIGINA L MANDA MUS P ROCEEDING M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The pa rties hav e fi l ed i n this court a joint motion t o dismiss the petition for wr it of mand a mus . T he pa

rt ie s st a te that th e y

have re a c he d a

se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt. The motion is gr anted, a

nd this original pr ocee ding is dismissed.

PER C URI AM Fe bruar y 4, 2010 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.
RECORD OF COMMUNICATION

TELEPHONE CALL

DATE: August 3 , 2012

SUBJECT: Los Angeles County Sanitation District

– Discharge Limit for Industrial Wastewater

–

Oil and Grease

FROM: Nicole Law

– EPA Region IX, Rules Office

Stanley Tong

– EPA Region IX, Rule s Office

TO: Kai Kuo

– Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Industrial

Waste Section

, ( 562 ) 908

- 4288 x 2913

SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION:

1. The limit for disposal of <25,000 gallons/day wastewater through the sanitary sewer sy stem from oil

fields is 60 mg/L non

- polar oil and grease

.

2. The limit for disposal of >25,000 gallons/day wastewater from oil fields is 75 mg/L total oil and

grease.

3. The 60

– 75 mg/L limit is not specifically listed on their discharge limit web sit e. There are limits for

the disposal of other contaminates into the industrial sewer system.

http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/industrial_waste/iwpolicies/discha rge_limits.asp
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

September 29, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

U.S. Customs Service (CUS)

    OMB Number: 1515-0086.
    Form Number: Customs Forms 214, 214A, 214B, 214C, and 216.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Application for Foreign Trade Zone Admission and Status 
Designation (CFs 214, 214A, 214B, 214C); and Application of Foreign-
Trade Zone Activity Permit (CF 216)
    Description: Customs Forms 214, 214A, 214B, and 214C, Application 
for Foreign-Trade Zone Admission and/or Status Designation, are used by 
business firms which bring merchandise into a foreign trade zone, to 
register the admission of such merchandise to zones and to apply for 
the appropriate zone status. This information is collected pursuant to 
19 CFR 146.32. Customs Form 216, Application for Foreign-Trade Zone 
Activity Permit, is used by business firms to request approval to 
manipulate, manufacture, exhibit or destroy merchandise in a foreign 
trade zone in accordance with 19 CFR 146.52.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Estimated Number of Recordkeepers: 8,675.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Recordkeeper: 17 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Recordkeeping Burden: 62,675 hours.
    Clearance Officer: J. Edgar Nichols (202) 927-1426, U.S. Customs 
Service, Printing and Records Management Branch, Room 6216, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-26466 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
#### Theodore HUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-453.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 13, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1971.

Ernest D. Jackson, Sr., Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Thomas B. Calhoun and William W. Herring, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

A full appellate review has been granted to the appellant herein pursuant to the *77provisions of Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So.2d 577 (Fla.1967). The briefs and record on appeal in this cause have been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., RAWLS, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 26, 2020

No. 04-20-00360-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.B.G., A.N.G., CHILDREN

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-467

Honorable Kelley Kimble, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

A copy of appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this court on July 16, 2020. On July 

16, 2020, this court informed appellant in writing that (1) a filing fee of $205 and (2) an amended 

notice of appeal were due no later than July 31, 2020. The filing fee has not been paid and our 

record contains no evidence that appellant is excused by statute or rule from paying the filing 

fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20. Also, an amended notice of appeal has not been filed. 

 It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing no later than September 

10, 2020 that either: (1) the filing fee has been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without 

paying the filing fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be 

dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c). Appellant is also 

ORDERED to file an amended notice of appeal no later than September 10, 2020.

All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending the payment of the filing fee. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sierra Resource Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending  September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Sandra J. Andre, President and Chief Executive Officer 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, to my 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.



Date: November 5, 2008



                                            By: /s/ SANDRA J. ANDRE
                                                ___________________________
                                                    Sandra J. Andre
                                                    President and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
Opinion issued February 24, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00943
- CR

——————————— VAUGHN MONROE , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1445412

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Vaughn Monroe , was previously convicted of the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, which carries with it a requirement to register2

with the Texas sex offender registration program. 1 Monroe was charged with failure to c omply with the applicable sex offender registration requirements

. The trial court found Monroe guilty, and in accordance with Monroe’s plea bargain agreement with the State, sentenced Monroe to confinement for six yea rs. Monroe filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’ s permission to appe al. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 44.02 (West 2006); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been m ade part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2 (d).
T he trial court’ s certification of appellant’s right to appeal is included in the
record

. T he trial court ’s certification correctly states t hat that Monroe has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial court’ s certification. Because Monroe has no right of appeal , we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.0 21 (West 2011) ; T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P. §62.001 (West 2014).
EXHIBIT
31.2





CERTIFICATIONS





I, George
Cardoza, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the three
months ended June 30, 2010 of NeoGenomics, Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a 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;





February
      17, 2011
              
              /s/ George
      CardozaGeorge
      CardozaChief
      Financial Officer
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4157



# 
M ARCUS T YRONE W ILLIAMSON ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-00-288) Submitted: August 10, 2001 Decided: September 17, 2001 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELLouis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Marcus Tyrone Williamson appeals his 120-month custodial sentence entered on his guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 2000). Williamson noted a timely appeal, and his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), in which he represents that there are no arguable issues of merit in this appeal. However, in his brief, counsel addressed whether his failure to file amotion to suppress evidence relating exclusively to a count the Government agreed to dismiss as part of Williamson’s plea agreement could constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. In order for a defendant to challenge his conviction on direct appeal based on his counsel’s ineffectiveness, that ineffectiveness must conclusively appear on the face of the record. See United States v. Martinez , 136 F.3d 972, 979 (4th Cir. 1998). Here, Williamson’splea agreement, which contemplates the dismissal of count one, foreclosed the necessity of filing a motion to suppress evidence relating to that count. Accordingly, because the record does not conclusively show that Williamson’s counsel was ineffective, we agree that this issue is meritless.
In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record and find no reversible error. Williamson’s conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed. However, 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,counsel may then move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation, by a motion stating that a copy thereof was served on the client. In light of these requirements, we deny Williamson’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature. We dispense with oral argument 2 U NITED S TATES v. W ILLIAMSONbecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. W ILLIAMSON
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5070-5071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2512]


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


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Agency Information Collection: Submission for OMB Review; Comment 
Request

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of 
Veterans Affairs, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) the following proposal for the collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    OMB Control Number: 2900-0114.
    Title and Form Number: Statement of Marital Relationship, VA Form 
21-4170.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Need and Uses: The form is used to develop the evidence necessary 
to make

[[Page 5071]]

a determination as to whether a claimed common law marriage can be 
recognized by the VA.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,000 hours.
    Estimated Total Average Burden Per Respondent: 30 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 6,000.

ADDRESSES: A copy of this submission may be obtained from Ron Taylor, 
VA Clearance Officer (045A4), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8015.
    Comments and recommendations concerning this submission should be 
directed to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Allison Eydt, OMB Human Resources 
and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 
Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-4650. DO NOT send requests for benefits 
to this address.

DATES: Comments on the information collection should be directed to the 
OMB Desk Officer by March 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Taylor, VA Clearance Officer 
(045A4), (202) 273-8015.

    Dated: January 13, 1997.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Donald L. Neilson,
Director, Information Management Service.
[FR Doc. 97-2512 Filed 1-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Exhibit 10.13

Translated From Japanese

                           Monetary Loan Certification

Mitsubishi Tokyo UFJ Bank KK

Borrower:

Address: Nishi Shinjuku Showa Bldg 11F, 1-13-12 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku,
         Tokyo 160-0023 Tel: 03-5909-1561   Fax: 03-5909-1562

Name:    IA Partners KK
         Hideki Anan

Borrower shall enter into a monetary loan agreement under approving each article
in bank dealing contract with you.

Article 1: Monetary Loan

Borrower has received money form you based on conditions below.

1. Borrowing Amount: (Y)150,000,000

2. Use of proceeds: Operating capital

3. Interest rate: 2.81% annually, Ratio of damage 14%

4. Credit guarantee corporation

5. Repayment method

   (1) The first repayment date: 2007/10/31 Amount: (Y)7,500,000

       Final repayment date: 2012/7/31 (Y)7,500,000

   (2) The second repayment month: 2008/January (Y)7,500,000

       Term of repayment: until 2012/ April Every 3 months (Y)7,500,000

   (3) Repayment date is the end of month

   (4) In case repayment date is holiday, pay in the following day.

6. Interest payment method: Prepay

7. Bank account

Bank branch: Toritsu Daigaku Mae branch

Account number: 1088606

Account holder: borrower

                                     - 1 -
#### Rubin SANTANA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2552.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 8, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1978.

Engel, Aronson, Fried & Cohn, Miami and Jan K. Moncol, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gem and Sharon Langer, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before ' PEARSON, BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without prejudice to file a proceeding pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-82982, 33-97024, 333-25769, 333-49497, 333-51657, 333-59245, 333-94187, 333-50874, 333-108109, 333-111464, 333-127708, 333-129166, 333-135054) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-29059, 333-29975, 333-34119,
333-56749, 333-56747, 333-80623, 333-38490, 333-38494, 333-91468, 333-91470, 333-106066, 333-117923) of GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. of our report dated March 7, 2007 relating to the financial statements, managements assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading Selected
Financial Data in this Form 10-K.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|Boston, Massachusetts         
|March 7, 2007
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William REED.

No. 60146.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

William H. Byrnes, III, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Donald T. Giglio, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EX 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Rene Bernard, certify that:



1.

I have received this quarterly report of Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended May 31, 2002 of The Bralorne Mining Company, the registrant;



2.

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



3.

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



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a.

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and



c.

presented in this quarterly report our conclusion about effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:



a.

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal control; and



b.

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regards to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Dated:

June 9, 2004

/s/Rene Bernard



Rene Bernard

Chief Executive Officer

President and Director