alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DIS'TRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

CHRISTOPHER HESPENHEIDE, I 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOCTOR BASHLINE, 

Civil Action No. 05-289 Erie 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on October 5, 

2005, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for 

report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(I), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of tlie Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 141, filed on May 

30, 2006, recommended that Defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 101 be granted. 

The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. 

Service was made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendant. No objections were 

filed. After de novo review of the motion and documents in the case, together with the 

Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered: 

AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 101 is 

GRANTED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 141 of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed 

on May 30, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court. 

S/ Sean J. McLaughlin United States District Judge 

cm: All parties of record 

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:05-cv-00289-SJM-SPB Document 15 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Robert SANDERS, John Cantry, Lawrence Hudson, Michael Conner and Joshua Berry v. Lev HALL, Jr. and New Orleans Public Service, Inc.

No. 61002.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1977.

In re: Robert Sanders, et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans, 350 So.2d 262.

Denied.

TATE, J.,

dissents. Although the majority of this Court apparently feels that the court of appeal properly applied *Coco,*the court of appeal apparently reduced the awards based on its record — deduction of exaggeration. I see no sound reason for a reviewing court to reach this conclusion in opposition to the trior of fact, simply because similar injuries with similar medical treatment were received in the same accident.
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. John A. COROTTO. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. Dozolina ROLANDI.

Nos. 8448, 8449.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 2, 1937.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioners.

Philip G. Sheehy, of San Jose, Cal., for respondent Corotto.

Myrtle Cerf, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent Rolandi.

Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon motion of petitioner in each of above causes, consented to by respondents, ordered petition to review in above causes dismissed, that a judgment of dismissal be filed and entered in each cause, and mandates of this court be issued forthwith.
#### J. B. MAYS, Appellant, v. CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, INC., a corporation, Appellee.

No. L-58.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 5, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The
Board of Directors
Merge Technologies Incorporated:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-34884, 333-100104, 333-107997, 333-40832,
333-40882, and 333-107991) on Form S-8 of Merge Technologies Incorporated of our reports dated March 4, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Merge Technologies Incorporated as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, comprehensive income, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on
Form 10-K of Merge Technologies Incorporated.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Chicago,
Illinois
March 7, 2005

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONI, Bruce Capra, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nicklebys.com, 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;

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 the registrant 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)) for the small business issuer and have:

> 
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;				(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers 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				(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 the small business issuer'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 the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

			Date: August 11, 2005     /s/ Bruce Capra                                           Bruce Capra				Chief Financial Officer

----
#### ROD-LYN CORPORATION, etc., Petitioner, v. Julius DeBELAY, Respondent.

No. 39551.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 11, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 231 So.2d 233.

ERVIN, C. J, and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 

JASON SCALISE, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER 

Cr. No. 1:07-cr-00052 Erie 

(Civ. No. 12-61 Erie) 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Jason Scalise's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed at Criminal No. 07-52 Erie. ECF No. 86. 

An Evidentiary Hearing on the motion was set for Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. The 

parties have filed a joint request to resolve the motion to vacate and to proceed to a sentencing 

hearing. We will grant the request and set a sentencing hearing. Accordingly, the following 

Order is hereby entered. 

AND NOW, to-wit, this ~ w.. 

day of July, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Joint Request to Resolve Motion to Vacate, Set aside, or 

Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2255 is GRANTED as follows. 

1. Petitioner's Motion to Vacate Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is GRANTED. 

2. The Judgment of Sentence entered August 6, 2009 is hereby VACATED. 

3. A new Sentencing hearing is hereby set for Thursday, September 17, 2015, at 

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8A, gth Floor, United States Courthouse, 700 Grant 

Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

4. The evidentiary hearing set for July 23,22015 is CANCELLED. 

5. The Parties may file a Position with Respect to Sentencing Factors no later than 

August 27, 2015. A party may file a response to the opposing party's Position 

with Respect to Sentencing Factors no later than September 3, 2015. A party may 

file supplemental information or a Sentencing Memorandum no later than 

September 10, 2015. 

114,,~ .. ~ c. eo fdA. ~. Maurice B. Cohill, Jr. 

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 1:12-cv-00061-MBC Document 4 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 1
#### RON-LEE, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Roberto P. LARIOSA et ux., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 77-1731, 77-1978.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 1978.

Preddy, Kutner & Hardy and Howard K. Cherna, Miami, for appellants.

Knight, Peters, Pickle, Niemoeller & Flynn, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ.

*471KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, defendant and third party plaintiff below, brings these consolidated appeals from orders dismissing its fourth amended complaint with prejudice against appellees, third party defendants below. We affirm.

We have carefully reviewed the appellant’s fourth amended complaint and have formed the opinion that the complaint does not set forth sufficient allegations to state a cause of action for indemnity or contribution against appellees. Because this opinion is consistent with the orders appealed entered by the trial court, the orders are affirmed. See *Stuart v. Hertz,*351 So.2d 703 (Fla.1977); *VTN Inc. v. Coastal Engineering Associates,*341 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); *Armor Elevator Co., Inc., v. Elevator Sales & Service, Inc.,*309 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and *Hutchings v. Harry,*242 So.2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27038]


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

NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM


National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Communications System (NCS).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Industry Executive Subcommittee (IES) of the President's 
National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will 
meet on Tuesday, October 21, 1997, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 8283 Greensboro 
Drive, McLean, Virginia. The agenda is as follows:

--Call to Order/Welcoming Remarks
--NSTAC XX Planning
--Operations Support Group Report
--Information Infrastructure Group Report
--Network Group Report
--Legislative and Regulatory Group Report
--Adjournment

    Attendance at this meeting is limited, due to the capacity of the 
meeting facility. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must confirm 
their attendance with Ms. Janet Jefferson, Customer Service and 
Information Assurance Division, (703) 607-6209.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Jefferson or write the Manager, National Communications System, 701 
South Court House Road, Arlington, VA 22204-2198.
Dennis Bodson,
Chief, Technology and Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-27038 Filed 10-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-03-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6596
MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUTH JONES, Deputy Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr. District Judge. (CA-96-2746-4-21BE) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his motion to amend said order. We have r eviewed the record and the districtcourt's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dehoney v. Jones , No. CA-96-2746-4-21BE (D.S.C. Mar. 12 and Apr. 18, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 21
9/1/2000                 SODEXHO MARRIOTT SERVICES, INC.        PAGE NUMBER :  1
                              DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES
                         STATE INCORPORATION 10-K REPORT

State:   Alabama
Marcorp, Inc.

State:   California
Sodexho Management Corp.
Saga Health Care Dietary Management Services, Inc.
Saga Education Food Services, Inc.

State:   Delaware
Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc.
Sodexho Operations, LLC.
Sodexho Marriott Laundry Services, Inc.
Sodexho Marriott Education Services, Inc.
SMS Services of California, Inc.
SMO Finance Corp.
Corporate Food Services, Inc.
Sodexho Marriott Services of Indiana Limited Partnership
SDH I, Inc.
SDH II, Inc.
SDH III, Inc.
SDH IV, Inc.
Sodexho America, LLC.

State:   Massachusetts
International Catering Corp. of Massachusetts

State:   New Jersey
SMS Electrical, Inc. dba SMS Electrical and Plumbing

State:   New York
Sodexho Marriott Management, Inc.

State:   Texas
Premier Hospitality, Inc.
Premier Hospitality Club, Inc.
Sodexho Marriott Services of Texas Limited Partnership

State:   Vermont
Sodexho Vermont, Inc.

Territory: Guam
Sodexho Services Guam, Inc.







<PAGE>


9/1/2000                 SODEXHO MARRIOTT SERVICES, INC.        PAGE NUMBER :  2
                              FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES
                         CORPS. WITHIN COUNTRY 10-K REPORT


Country:          Canada, Ontario
Sodexho MS Canada, Ltd. dba Sodexho Marriott Services Canada
Ontrak Services, Inc.

Country:          Canada, Quebec
Sodexho Marriott Quebec Ltee
Sodexho Financiere du Canada, Inc.
Sodexho Canada, Inc. dba Sodexho Services Canada
Luc, Inc.

Country:          Canada, B.C.
Universal Remote Site Services, Ltd.
Fortier Services, Ltd.
Universal Remote Site Holdings, Ltd.
Daikin AC ( A

mericas), Inc

. 1645 Wallace Drive, Suite 110 Carrollton, TX 75006 USA TEL: 866-4DAIKIN
FAX: 972-245-1038
www.daikinac.com

November 1, 2012

Melissa Fiffer

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction Branch Stratospheric Protection Division Environmental Protection Agency 1310 L Street, NW

10 th Floor (MC 6205J) Washington, DC 20005

RE: Additional Information in Support of Daikin U.S. Corporation’s SNAP

Petition for HFC-32 in Reside ntial and Light Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

VIA EMAIL ONLY

Dear Ms. Fiffer:

Daikin U.S. Corporation (Dai kin) has learned that earlier this week the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute released a risk assessment on its web site that is relevant to Daikin’s pending HFC-32 SNAP petition. The ne w risk assessment is entitled “AHRI Project 8004 Final Report, Risk Assessment of Heat Pump s using 2L Flammable Refrigerants,” and it

assesses risks associated with the use of R-32 in residential heat pump ap plications. A copy of the report is attached as a PDF file, and the repo rt can be accessed directly at the following URL:

http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/fil es/RESEARCH/Techni cal%20Results/AHRI8004%20Final%20Report.pdf

I informed David Godwin in your office of the ex istence of this new risk assessment on Tuesday, October 30. Daikin is notifying EPA of the existe nce of this report to as new information under

40 C.F.R. § 82.180(a)(5).

Sincerely,

Mark V. Stanga for Daikin U.S. Corporation

Encl.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Key Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kirk W. Morton, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Kirk W. Morton |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Kirk W.  Morton          |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| December 19,  2003  |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32

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 China Holdings Group, Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dempsey K. Mork, Chief Executive and Financial  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 the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  August 10, 2011
By  /s/ Dempsey K. Mork
-----------------------------
     Dempsey K. Mork
     Chief Executive and Financial Officer
    (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION
-------------

I, Bruce Capra, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nicklebys.com, Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  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  officers  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 have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information   relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its  consolidated
     subsidiaries,  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   conclusions   about  the
     effectiveness  of the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying  officers 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  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent
functions):

     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 controls; 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  officers 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 regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 19, 2004


/s/ Bruce Capra
---------------------------------
Bruce Capra
Chief Financial Officer
#### Melvin JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-680.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 17, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Saul Tonkelson et al., Doing Business as Kelson Liquors, Suing on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Licensees in the City of New York, Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, *v.*City of New York et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 26, 1952.

*Lester H. Schreiber*and *Solomon H. Friesner*for plaintiffs.

*Denis M. Hurley, Corporation Counsel (Stanley Buchsbaum*and *Morris L. Heath*of counsel), for defendants.

*893Hecht, J.

All the attacks made by the plaintiff upon Local Law No. 58 for 1952 have already, with one exception, been overruled in three decisions by justices of this court *(Steuben Restaurants*v. *City of New York,*202 Misc. 22; *Linehan-Leary Corp.*v. *City of New York,*202 Misc. 25; *O’Gara*v. *Joseph,*202 Misc. 28).

The only claim now made which has not been passed upon is that the law does not tax all those possessing the privilege of selling at retail, but only some of them, and that the statute thus denies the equal protection of the laws. It is well settled that the Legislature may resort to classification in imposing a tax and that the tax will be upheld if the classification is not arbitrary but rests upon a reasonable basis. In the court’s opinion that is the case here. There are substantial differences between the types of situations in which the tax is imposed by the law and those in which the privilege of selling at retail has been permitted to go untaxed. There is insufficient basis for reaching the conclusion that the differences are not substantial enough to warrant a holding that the classification made by a local legislative body was unreasonable.

The motion for temporary injunction is denied.