alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(May 31, 1991)

#### Accen Construction Corp., Respondent, v Port Washington Union Free School District, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaugnessy, J.), entered January 10, 1990,. which denied its motion to dismiss, *inter alia,*for the plaintiffs failure to serve a notice of claim pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (1).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion to dismiss is granted.

The plaintiff failed to present its purported notice of claim to "the governing body”, the Board of Education of the defendant Port Washington Union Free School District, as required by Education Law § 3813 (1). The application and certificate for payment, purporting to be the notice of claim, was directed to a named individual at the office of the defendant who the defendant asserted was its business agent. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the individual to whom the applica*754tion for payment was directed was given authority by the Board of Education to receive the notice of claim. The requirements of Education Law § 3813 (1) must be formally complied with and, therefore, the plaintiffs failure to timely serve a notice of claim upon the Board of Education or its designee was a fatal defect requiring dismissal of the plaintiffs first cause of action *(see, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ.,*60 NY2d 539; *F & G Heating Co. v Board of Educ.,*103 AD2d 791; *Almar Constr. Corp. v Hughes & Sons,*58 AD2d 615). Nor does the plaintiffs second cause of action for extra compensation claimed to have been earned upon the construction project fare any better. The purported notice of claim consists of correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant’s architect. We reject the plaintiffs argument that service of the complaint within three months after the accrual of the claim excuses its failure in serving a notice of claim *(see, Davidson v Bronx Mun. Hosp.,*64 NY2d 59, 61). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.
| **EXHIBIT 23.1(B)**                                     |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |
| **Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants** |

 

To the Board of Directors

 

Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.

 

As independent certified public accountants, we consent to the incorporation of our report dated October 17, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. for the years ended July 31, 2007 and 2006 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended July 31, 2008.

 

October 23, 2008

 

| /s/ Quick & McFarlin, P.C. |
|--------------------------------|
| Quick & McFarlin, P.C.     |
---

Exhibit:32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Som Resources Inc., (the
"Company") on 10Q SB for the period ending January 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric
Plexman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | 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.

Date: March 14, 2006.

/s/ Eric
PlexmanEric Plexman

Chief Executive Officer(Title)

---
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Black Nickel Acquisition Corp. III
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Andrew Reckles, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 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.


/s/
                      Andrew RecklesAndrew
                          Reckles
                        Principal
                          Financial Officer
                        November
                          13, 2006
---

2013 FORM - 20F EXHIBIT - 12.1 SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONSThe disclosure required to be filed pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 is included below in this Exhibit-12.1 in the form required as Certificates by the Company's CFO. CFO CERTIFICATE I, Robert V. Rudman, certify that: 1.

   I have reviewed and read this annual report on Form-20F of Continental Energy Corporation (the “Company”);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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.

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

   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(c)

   evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’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)

   disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered y the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5.

   The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluations of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Dated: May 13, 2014 <Signed>Robert V. RudmanCFO


---
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1972 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of methyl 4-iodo2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl] benzoate, sodium salt (Iodosulfuron methyl, sodium salt) and application adjuvants. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Mr. CRAPO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures 

of methyl 4-iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin2-yl)ureidosulfonyl] benzoate, sodium salt (Iodosulfuron 

methyl, sodium salt) and application adjuvants. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1972 IS

1 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF METHYL 4-IODO-2-[3-(4-METHOXY2 6-METHYL-1,3,5-TRIAZIN-2- 

3 YL)UREIDOSULFONYL] BENZOATE, SODIUM 

4 SALT (IODOSULFURON METHYL, SODIUM 

5 SALT) AND APPLICATION ADJUVANTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.11.44 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 mixtures of methyl 4-iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5- 

9 triazin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl] benzoate, sodium salt (Iodosul10 furon methyl, sodium salt) and application adjuvants) is 

11 amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

12 2011’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

15 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
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
  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ William L. BallhausWilliam L. BallhausPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 6, 2009
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-03-306-CV

IN RE TIMOTHY DEWAYNE TEMPLETON	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	We have considered “Relator’s Agreed Motion to Withdraw and Dismiss Mandamus.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss this original proceeding.  

								PER CURIAM

PANEL B:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 9, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WANDA MARIE COHILL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 15483

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 02479

- JCM

- EJY

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Wanda Marie Cohill appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 15483

claim. Naffe v. Frey , 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cohill ’ s action because Cohill failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Nev. Rev. Stat.

§ 11.190(3)(d)

- (e) ( three

- year statute of limitations for misrepresentation claims);

Rivera v. Peri & So ns Farms, Inc ., 735 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2013) (elements of

breach of contract claim under Nevada law); Wood v. Germann , 331 P.3d 859,

861

- 862 ( Nev. 2014) (holding that , under Nevada law, homeowner lacked standing

to challenge an assignment of a deed of trust as a non

- party to the pooling service

agreement) ; Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Butch Lewis Prod

. Inc ., 808 P.2d 919, 923

( Nev. 1991) (elements of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim

under Nevada law ); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid

dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Cohill’s contention that the district judge was

biased against her.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1626 

To require issuers of long term care insurance to establish third-party review 

processes for disputed claims. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2009 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require issuers of long term care insurance to establish 

third-party review processes for disputed claims. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Long Term Care In5 surance Integrity Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE DISPUTE RESOLU7 TION REVIEW PROCESS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, an insurance issuer that offers a long term 

10 care insurance plan shall develop and implement claims 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1626 IS

1 dispute resolution procedures that comply with the re2 quirements of this section that shall be applicable to such 

3 plan. 

4 (b) REQUIREMENT.—A claims dispute resolution pro5 cedure under subsection (a) shall— 

6 (1) be designed to expeditiously resolve disputes 

7 concerning claims under the plan involved; 

8 (2) with respect to such disputes provide for the 

9 application of one or more alternative means of dis10 pute resolution involving independent third-party re11 view under appropriate circumstances by entities 

12 that are mutually acceptable to the issuer and the 

13 enrollee involved, with the decision of such reviewer 

14 being binding on the issuer; and 

15 (3) ensure that an enrollee is eligible to obtain 

16 claims review only to the extent and in the manner 

17 provided for in the applicable insurance contract. 

18 (c) APPEALS.—An enrollee may appeal the decision 

19 of an independent reviewer under subsection (b)(2) to an 

20 appropriate State court as provided for under State law. 

21 (d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec22 tion shall be construed to provide authority for an inde23 pendent third-party reviewer under subsection (b)(2) to 

24 modify the terms of any long term care insurance contract. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH LEE BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. District Judge. (7:04-cr-27; 7:06-cv-01241-HMH) Submitted: February 22, 2007 De cided: February 28, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Lee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kenneth Lee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion to dismiss the indictment, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Brown’s motion for 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
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 6, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40719

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

versus REGINALD BRIGHAM Defendant-Appellant

- - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

- - - - - ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion August 18, 2003, 5 Cir., 2003,

_____ F.3d

____ ) (November 6, 2003) BEFORE: KING, Chief Judge, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES,

SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing ofsupplemental briefs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Intertek USA, Inc., 109-B Freedom Boulevard, Yorktown, VA 23692, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                    

*http://cbp.gov/​linkhandler/​cgov/​trade/​automated/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​gaulist.ctt/​gaulist.pdf.*

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on September 07, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2014.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Mike McCormick, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: February 29, 2012.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. 2012-5742 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Antonella Apuzzo DiPortanova and Paul Piero DiPortanova V. James

Patrick Smith ( Court Appointed Guardian), Tina Lamatta, ( Court

Appoin ted Guardian of the Person), and Richard E. Monroe, Jr. (

Court Appointed Guardian of the Estate

Appellate case number: 01

- 10

- 01019

- CV

Trial court case number: 94467438

Trial court: Probate Court No 2 of Harris County

Date motion filed: 1/15/13

Party filing motion: Appellants

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle

Date: February 27, 2013