alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ALD

- 162 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11

- 1674

___________

In re : KRIM M. BALLENTINE

, Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Wri t of Mandamus from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (Related to D.V.I. Civ. No. 10

- cv

- 00028 )

____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 14, 2011 Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : April 27, 2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

P etitioner Krim M. Ballentine , proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus

compelling the District Court to issue a declaratory judgment, grant a hearing, and

respond to his filings and letters . For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.

Ballentine filed suit against the defendants in the District Co urt in March 2010

.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in May 2010. On July 28, 2010, Ballentine filed

a motion request ing a hearing

. Two months later, on September 30, 2010, Ballentine

filed a letter that appears to ask for “someone to ans wer the questions posed . . .”2

Months later, o n March 15, 2011, Ballentine filed a petition for a writ of

mandamus , seeking a declarat ory judgment in the District Court on his then

- pending

complaint. Ballentine states that he received no response to his “filings and inquiry

letters,” and further requests a “pre

- trial status hearing or trial; or, a Judgment issue

where „natural born‟ is designated a non

- court decision.”

When Ballentine filed this mandamus petition, the District Court had not yet ruled

on his motion requesting a hearing or on the defendant‟s motion to dismiss. However, on

March 22, 2011, the District Court denied the mot ion for a hearing, and, on March 31,

2011, granted the motion to dismiss the complaint. Because the case has been closed, we

will deny the mandamus petition as moot.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001108311
<NAME>                        Central Visions, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   other
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jan-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Feb-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Apr-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         570
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               570
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       550
<OTHER-SE>                                     570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   570
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,030
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,030)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,030)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         800,255
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,999,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     587,752,308
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,162,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             585,088,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       211,823
<OTHER-SE>                                 443,037,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               585,088,049
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            61,911,757
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            26,143,740
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,048,898
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             23,484,930
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         23,484,930
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                23,484,930
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MICHAEL LEE JACOBS, ) DOC #T21384, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-966 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed December 14, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. Fernandez, Judge. Michael Lee Jacobs, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

### NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### Opal O. SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28214.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 28, 1956.

*580No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $100.

In the absence of a bond or recognizance on appeal, or a showing that appellant is in jail, we are without jurisdiction of this misdemeanor appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.
I am glad the EPA is considering changes to water quality standards regu lation. However, they

don’t go far enough. I would like to see EPA look at the bigger picture and consistent with this, I would like to propose an approach to protecting our nation’s waters from toxics. The current approach, which involves setting water quality standards for toxics on a chemical

- by

- chemical

basis, is not effective. This is evidenced by the fact that EPA has managed to set standards for less than 1% of the chemicals in use in our economy.

The assumption on which the current approach i s based is that in order to protect water quality

from toxics, we have to define safe levels of these chemicals. While this seems perfectly logical, in practice it is very difficult to do. In any case, the chemicals for which EPA is trying to develop st andards for or should be trying to develop standards for, have already been introduced into the environment, sometimes in large quantities. The debate over how much is safe is not useful if it serves primarily to delay action.

We need to sh ift our focus from defining safe levels of chemicals to developing disincentives for using them when there is scientific evidence that they cause harm, even if that evidence is not sufficiently developed for us to be able to define the level at which they may be considered

“safe”.

What might these disincentives look like? One option would be to require manufacturers to provide toxicity rating on the labels of consumer products. The rating could appear as say, a

score from 1 to 10.

Coming up with t hese ratings need not be difficult. For consumer products that go down to the drain, it could be done using an existing regulatory tool. This tool is known as Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing. It is currently used to evaluate the toxicity of sewage treatment plant

effluent. It basically involves assessing the impact of treated effluent on the growth and survival of a select group of aquatic species. WET tests could be used to evaluate the toxicity of consumer products and the results translated in to a toxicity rating to appear on the label.

By giving consumers a way to distinguish between more or less hazardous products, manufacturers would have a reason to reduce their toxicity, perhaps well ahead of when water quality standards may be develope d for all of the chemicals they contain. Manufacturers who are already producing less toxic products would have a competitive edge. The field of green chemistry would get a boost.

It costs on the order of $5000 to run a set of WET tests on a sample of sewage effluent. This is trivial compared to what manufacturers might spend to advertise a single product. It is also modest compared to the cost of treating a single case of cancer.

In fact, compared to trying to determine which of the 80,000 chemic als currently in use in our economy are safe and at what concentrations, the proposal to use WET testing to evaluate the toxicity of consumer products is modest indeed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sonja Biorn

- Hansen
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23




             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
Met One, Inc.:


We consent to the inclusion of our report dated September 19, 1995 with respect
to the balance sheets of Met One, Inc. as of June 30, 1995, 1994, and 1993, and
the related statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 1995, which report appears
in the Form 8-K of Pacific Scientific Company, dated February 12, 1996.




KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Portland, Oregon
February 12, 1996
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       2,417,258
<SECURITIES>                                14,423,706
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,557,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                   265,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,857,297
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,764,178
<PP&E>                                       5,936,075
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,904,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,949,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,634,435
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        20,904
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,069,252
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,949,591
<SALES>                                      5,027,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,283,718
<CGS>                                        2,240,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,130,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,862,109
<INCOME-TAX>                                   651,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,211,109
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,211,109
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 January 15, 2016

p0112

Order 

Clerk

January 15, 2016

152727

In re CUSHMAN, Minors. SC: 152727

COA: 327254

Oakland CC Family Division:

13-810540-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 10, 2015 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Phantom Vision 2+ Check List

Legal: ❑ Verify appropriate NOTAMs placed ❑ Location/people authorizations/releases ❑ TFRs/Airspace/Airport proximity ❑ AII operating documents on hand ❑ Review PIC requirements, current condition ❑ (1 AM SAFE), currency requirements

Environment• ❑ Weather (Day, VFR, 3+ SM vis, Clouds 500 v 2000 h, Wind <= 10 mph ❑ Warning signs posted ❑ Hazards, obstructions, pedestrian or vehicular traffic in flight path ❑ Non essential personnel cleared/behind barriers

Vehicle: ❑ Review maintenance records ❑ Inspect for damage ❑ Props correctly installed ❑ Memory card installed ❑ Remote Controller, smart battery, range extender and screen fully charged. ❑ Propellers mounted correctly. ❑ Gimbal clamp, lens cap removed. ❑ Damping absorbers are in good condition, not broken or worn. ❑ Anti-drop kits have been mounted correctly. ❑ Micro-SD card has been inserted if necessary. ❑ Gimbal is functioning as normal. ❑ Motors can start and are functioning as normal.
Pre flight: ❑ Note flight path, review with 2nd VO. Note max height with trees, structures. ❑ Review emergency procedures/automated landing system ❑ Turn on radio to monitor local flight traffic ❑ DJI VISION App can connect to the camera. ❑ Note starting elevation (ASL=O AGL)
Flight: ❑ < 30 Knots, 300 ft AGL ❑ Power on remote, vehicle, wifi extender, screen device ❑ Calibrate compass if needed (toggle S1 switch 6x, rotate UA 360 0 H& V) ❑ Check rear LED flight indicators ❑ Check 6+ satellites (DJI Vision App) ❑ Scan flight environment ❑ Start props, hold at 5 feet, check controls. ❑ Fly plan, line of sight ❑ Note any incident, accident (report)
Landing: ❑ Land with >=30% battery power ❑ Power off UA, remote, wifi extender. Disconnect screen device ❑ Replace gimbal clamp, lens cap ❑ Post flight inspection, note damage, maintenance issues.
ID«HaP«tti>IOiaHAlAll^Q» T 

MIKE SMP80 N .;iV.. cCM'/nTF= as >»FFfiC*FiA-iON5 

'itfiiii t j^ l ^*^¥S!^ r jp.i:F> .i.ii1::.H 

fi.< fajjiiit . VilC • ^t*' " .-•,v..a.-.'-»:» 

r.;f>;-?.,:;;.-,<,;: llOtJSL Oh" RtPHt^ENTATlVt.S 

ThH Hannrablf! Kay La Hood 

S*Cr*'.«ry of TrjnSpjorLaL-L'n 

US Oepanment of Tranaponat-Dn 

400 7 ' Street SW 

Washi^gtDn, DC 2{1SM 

Rear .Secretary i^hood; 

13m vjritic\s in ^upoort of an applicMion sobmittciJ by the id.iio Mis, Idjtio RcElonsI WfX)". for grait 

funds under lh« Sioall Co mmunity Ar Servire DevHiopment Grant Program. On August 22, Idaho Falls 

\tisi service fram Horizon Air, connacting (usseixgets :D Boise, Patland, Seattle. Spokaresnd Northprn 

California. I his dl&conrlnuanceof-s^'Vlce wasa factor of internal airline reionri^uratlon and not a lack 

of damand ir tna a'ea. 

The loc^l Id^ho Fall:: su^inesvcommunity, dalrxg business Tiostlyin the Ncrthi/.'est region, relies on 

sve.stbound scrvicis. Idaho Falls is home to the, ilppartment of tne ijy Idaho NatKjna! Laboratory and 

managhg i:ompaiiit>^. Idaho Falli S aku d ^Jletvay comiriunity (u '.he nearby Yellowstone! and G-3nd 

Teton Naticnal Parks. TravRler use R.itimate.'i show morp. than 4O0.OO0 for the t35fe'n Ida no Heg-on and 

the n*ar*S'. h'jb^i'poi'l ivover a Ihret hour d-ive. 

The Cty of Idaho Falls has VJentlfied two or three air carriers that m<iiv be able lopiovidKVfeslbound 

icrvicL' 'or IhL' region. If successful inoataining tfie requested grant fjnds, the City will be able :o 

approarh thnsft airlinps in revenue guar<snte<;s, oost rediJctions. introductory fares and extensive 

advertising to ir>ilioU; IMc ilarl up o( new icrvitc la '.he region. 

As a resident rjf Idaho falls I fu ly iindersta-id and appreciate :fie Inportante of westbound coniTierc a! 

scr*/lcc to The buslrtMS<onrimunl;yand firiier%s of the region and I urge the Departmcntcf 

Transportarion to give tni? proposal consideration. 

Sincerely, 

C IS 

(:= • 

'.—, 

i 

> 

Q 

f s j 

OD 

<--'•-;.-. , 

rn^:^ . 

m-^ m sm 

m° 

CO 

Mike Sinpso.i 

Membwr of Corvgresji 

Idaho Falls Regional Airport - Small Community Air Service Development Grant - August 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6344

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY ALFRED CHOYCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CR-92-51-D, CA-95-62-1)

Submitted: January 14, 1997 Decided: January 28, 1997

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Alfred Choyce, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.

1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. The record shows that Appellant failed to file an

objection to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and

that the Appellant was apparently not given a warning about the

consequences of failure to object. In light of Appellant's failure

to object, the district court did not conduct a de novo review;

however, this error is harmless. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's

motion for counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Choyce, No. CR-92-51-D (M.D.N.C. Dec. 1,

1995). 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 32.1



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 SMTC Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:



1) the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 4, 2004 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 4, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ John CaldwellJohn CaldwellPresident and Chief Executive Officer




Date: August 18, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 8228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02363]



[[Page 8228]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4650-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Washington; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Washington (FEMA-4650-DR), dated March 29, 2022, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lance E. Davis, 
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for 
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Toney L. Raines as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-02363 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 31.1
  CERTIFICATION
    Form 10-Q
      Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e)) Rules 13a-15(f) 15d-15(f))