alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 58743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28796]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Roll Submitted by the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs., Interior

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 9(b)(2) of Pub. L. 103-324 (108 Stat. 
2156), as amended, notice is given of receipt of the membership list of 
the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, containing 1,214 names of 
tribal members.

DATE: December 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne E. Bolton, Superintendent, 
Michigan Agency, 2901.5 I-75 Business Spur, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 
49783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in the exercise of 
authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant 
Secretary--Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.1.
    The membership roll was received at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
Michigan Agency on May 2, 1996. After review, corrections to the roll 
were made: two names were listed twice and the second reference was 
removed and one name was removed because the person is enrolled with 
another band. The corrected list containing the names of 1,214 tribal 
members was approved by Tribal Council Resolution #97-0413-02 and 
submitted to the Michigan Agency on April 16, 1997.

    Dated: October 23, 1997.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-28796 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
```
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                EXHIBIT NUMBER 8

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
CONSOLIDATED PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARY            JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
---------------------------------            -----------------------------
<S>                                          <C>
Orion Tire Corporation                       The United States of America
Orion (B.V.I.) Tire Corporation              British Virgin Islands
Century Lead Limited                         British Virgin Islands
Capital Canton Limited                       British Virgin Islands
Sincere Ocean Limited                        British Virgin Islands
Ventures Kingdom Limited                     British Virgin Islands
Wealth Faith Limited                         British Virgin Islands
Million Good Limited                         British Virgin Islands
Easy Legend Limited                          British Virgin Islands
Great Windfall Agents Limited                British Virgin Islands
Honest Map Limited                           British Virgin Islands
Supreme Solutions Limited                    British Virgin Islands
Manwide Holdings Limited                     British Virgin Islands
The Rosedale Luxury Hotel & Suites Limited   PRC
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3790 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3790

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To extend the Alaska Native Vietnam era veterans land allotment 
                    program, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans 
Land Allotment Extension Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE ALASKA NATIVE VIETNAM ERA VETERANS LAND 
              ALLOTMENT PROGRAM.

    Section 1119(b)(3)(B) of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, 
Management, and Recreation Act (43 U.S.C. 1629g-1(b)(3)(B)) is amended 
by striking ``5-year period'' and inserting ``10-year period''.

            Passed the Senate December 19 (legislative day, December 
      16), 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3790

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To extend the Alaska Native Vietnam era veterans land allotment 
                    program, and for other purposes.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7093

MARLON BRAMWELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

B.G. COMPTON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(CA-04-230-7)

Submitted: November 4, 2004 Decided: November 9, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marlon Bramwell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order construing

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) as a motion to

vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying it

as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69,

374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Bramwell has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny Bramwell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,

and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Bramwell’s notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
- 3 -

200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). In order

to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a

prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the

Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly

discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear

and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have

found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2),

2255 (2000). Bramwell’s claims do not satisfy either of these

conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Bramwell to file a

successive § 2255 motion. 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. 

DISMISSED
Filed: March 1, 2011 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6580

(6:09-cv-00924-SB)

PERRY LEE WATFORD,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,

Respondent – Appellee.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed February 28, 2011, 

as follows:

On the cover sheet, district court information 

section, the case number is corrected to read “6:09-cv-00924-

SB.”

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6580

PERRY LEE WATFORD,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District 

Judge. (6:09-cv-00924-SB)

Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Perry Lee Watford, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Perry Lee Watford seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Watford has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.3




Exhibit 4.3









		
	
   	Deloitte LLP
La Tour Delaitte
1190 Avenue des
Canadiens-de-Montreal
Suite 500
Montreal QC H3B OM7
Canada

Tel: 514-393-7115
Fax: 514-390-4111
www.deloitte.ca




Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of MTY Food Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form F-80 of our report dated December 8, 2017 related to the amended and restated consolidated financial statements of the Company as at and for the years ended November 30, 2016 and 2015, appearing in the Notice of special meeting of shareholders and Management Information Circular ("Circular"), which is part of this Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading "Auditor, transfer agent and registrar" in such Circular.


/s/ Deloitte LLP 1


Montreal, Canada 
January 16, 2018




	
	  	 
	1 CPA auditor, CA, public accountancy permit No. Al10972




Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1375-14

EX PARTE RICHARD MARK BOWMAN, Appellant

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated in 2005. In 2013, he filed a

habeas application pursuant to Art. 11.072 attacking that conviction. The trial court denied

relief, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that counsel was ineffective.

Ex parte Bowman, __ S.W.3d __, No. 01-13-01045, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9458 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 26, 2014). The Court rejected the State’s appellate laches

argument, finding laches inapplicable to Art. 11.072 and concluding that the State’s
BOWMAN - 2

contention was waived since it was not raised in the trial court. Id.

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision, arguing, in its

second ground, that it was not required to raise laches in the trial court in order for it to be

addressed on appeal, and that laches applies to Art. 11.072. The State relies on our recent

opinion in Ex parte Smith, No. WR-79,465-01, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1470 (Tex.

Crim. App. Oct. 1, 2014).

In Smith, we held that a court may consider sua sponte whether laches should bar an

applicant’s habeas claim. We reasoned that habeas is governed by the elements of equity and

fairness, and those elements require a consideration of unreasonable delay. We clarified,

however, that delay alone is insufficient to establish the laches bar. Instead, “courts should

consider, among other things, [1] the length of applicant’s delay in requesting equitable

relief, [2] the reasons for the delay, . . . [3] the degree and type of prejudice borne by the

State resulting from applicant’s delay. . . .,” [and 4] “[whether the] delay may be excused.”

Pursuant to Smith, the State is correct that laches applies to Art. 11.072. Our rationale

in Smith, based on equity and fairness, applies to any habeas case, regardless of which statute

or provision it invokes. The State is also correct that its laches argument was not waived. 

The Court of Appeals erred to refuse to consider the argument.

The Court of Appeals correctly noted, however, that “[l]aches is a question of fact”

and, in Art. 11.072 cases, “the trial judge is the sole finder of fact.” Here, there is nothing

in the trial record, other than the length of the delay, from which to ascertain whether laches
BOWMAN - 3

has been proved. We have indicated that the proper course of action in such situations is to

remand to the trial court for a hearing on the laches issue. See Smith (remanding because

record was silent on reasons for delay); Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013) (remanding to give parties opportunity to litigate laches defense).

Accordingly, we grant the State’s petition for discretionary review on ground two,

vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals

for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The State’s first and third grounds are

dismissed without prejudice.

DATE DELIVERED: November 19, 2014

PUBLISH
Exhibit 32


     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on form 10-KSB/A (Amendment
2) for the Year Ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") by CaminoSoft Corp., the
undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.    The Report complies in all material respects 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 results of operations of Registrant.



                                             /s/ Stephen Crosson
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Stephen Crosson
                                             Chief Financial Officer &
                                             Chief Operating Officer


<PAGE>

Exhibit 32


     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on form 10-KSB/A (Amendment
2) for the Year Ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") by CaminoSoft Corp., the
undersigned hereby certifies that:

3.    The Report complies in all material respects with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and

4.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.


                                             /s/ Michael Skelton
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Michael Skelton
                                             Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
Chief Executive Officer of Domino's, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify
that to the undersigned's knowledge:


     1)   the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
          September 8, 2002 (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 Company's Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Company.


                                    /s/ David A. Brandon
                                    -----------------------------
                                    David A. Brandon
                                    Chief Executive Officer



Dated: October 23, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         554,624
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,016,647
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (666,134)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,991,538
<PP&E>                                       1,419,543
<DEPRECIATION>                               (678,338)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,073,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,678,922
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,909
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           129
<OTHER-SE>                                     553,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,073,025
<SALES>                                      6,928,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,870,256
<CGS>                                        4,709,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,491,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,331,242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                805,859
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,746,248)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 3, 2013

h0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

147090

PAYTRA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147090

COA: 307706

Wayne CC: 11-004678-CZ

CHARLIE LeDUFF, THE DETROIT

NEWSPAPER PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,

and THE DETROIT NEWS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 28, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10253

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Helen Kim, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-595-1

Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Helen Kim has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Defendant has filed a letter referencing counsel’s motion to withdraw. The 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 15, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10253 Document: 00515823711 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2021
No. 20-10253

2

record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation 

Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline 

to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States 

v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Defendant’s responsive letter. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 20-10253 Document: 00515823711 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2021
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 7, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00165

- CR

Richard DEBENED ETTO

, Appellant

v.

The State of

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. A1481

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File the Brief has been GRANTED. Time is

extended to November 13, 2015.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Patrick Edwin O'Fiel

The Law Office of Patrick O'Fiel, P.C.

The Schreiner Building

200 Earl Garrett, Suite 206

Kerrville, TX 78028 Steven A. Wadsworth

Assistant District Attorney

- 216th Judicial District

200 Earl Garrett St., Suite 202

Kerrville, TX 78028