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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7076

RICKY L. HEFNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHNATHAN HEATH JONES, Officer, in his official and individual capacities; 

KIMBERLY OSBORNE, f/k/a Kimberly Osborne-Evans, in her official and 

individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SYLVA POLICE DEPARTMENT, in their individual and official capacities; JOHN 

DOE, in his official and individual capacities; JANE DOE, in her official and 

individual capacities; CITY OF SYLVA, in their official and individual capacities; 

COUNTY OF JACKSON, in their official and individual capacities; JACKSON 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, in their official and individual capacities; STATE 

OF NORTH CAROLINA, in their official and individual capacities,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00227-MR)

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 3, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7076 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky L. Hefner, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Bader, Raleigh, North Carolina, Jake 

William Stewart, CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7076 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Ricky L. Hefner appeals the district court’s order granting Johnathan Jones’ and 

Kimberly Osborne’s motion for summary judgment and denying Hefner’s motion to 

appoint counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Hefner v. Jones, No. 

1:21-cv-00227-MR (W.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7076 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 70913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8956]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Rembrandt: A Decade of Brilliance (1648-1658)''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Rembrandt: A Decade of Brilliance (1648-
1658),'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the University of San Diego's University Galleries, from on or about 
March 21, 2015, until on or about May 22, 2015, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: November 18, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-28049 Filed 11-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
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 Sino-Biotics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David Lennox, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operations Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Sole Director of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (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.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sino-Biotics, Inc., and will be retained by Sino-Biotics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.    /s/   David Lennox David Lennox, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operations Officer (Principal Executive Officer), Sole Director   Date: May 21, 2007
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1927 

To extend the prohibition on asylum applications in the case of aliens arriving 

from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2011 

Mr. SABLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the prohibition on asylum applications in the case 

of aliens arriving from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ASYLUM APPLICATION PROHIBITION EX4 TENDED. 

5 Section 235(b)(1)(G) of the Immigration and Nation6 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(G)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘January 1, 2014.’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘the later of—’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1927 IH

1 ‘‘(1) the first day after the end of the transition 

2 period under section 6(a)(2) of the Joint Resolution 

3 entitled ‘A Joint Resolution to approve the ‘‘Cov4 enant To Establish a Commonwealth of the North5 ern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the 

6 United States of America’’, and for other purposes’, 

7 approved March 24, 1976 (Public Law 94–241; 90 

8 Stat. 263); or 

9 ‘‘(2) if the Secretary of Labor determines that 

10 an extension period is necessary under section 

11 6(d)(5) of such Joint Resolution, the first day after 

12 the end of that extension period.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Jane GULLETT, Appellant, v. D. D. GULLETT’S ADMINISTRATOR (Ralph N. Walter), et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 10, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1955.

Thomas D. Theobald, Jr., Grayson, for appellant.

J. Blaine Nickell, Nickell & Walter, West Liberty, Dysard & Dysard, Ashland, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Justice.

D. D. Gullett died in December, 1952. By his will, executed in August, 1949, he gave the bulk of his estate to his sisters, Mattie and Jane Gullett. Item 2 of the will, around which this controversy hinges, follows :

> “2. I will and bequeath to Jane Gullett and Mattie Gullett my sisters, all of my estate consisting of cash, bonds, notes, and live stock on hands at my death, and also all of my real estate wherever situated.”

One of the devisees, Mattie Gullett, predeceased the testator, leaving no issue. This action was instituted by the administrator for a declaratory judgment construing Item 2 of the will. The chancellor held that the testator died intestate as to that portion of his property devised to Mattie, and that it should pass to the heirs of the testator.

On this appeal Jane Gullett contends that the quoted provision of the will devised the estate to her and Mattie Gullett as cotenants, and that upon the death of Mattie Gullett without issue before the testator she took the entire estate Under the provisions of KRS 394.410 (1), which reads:

> “When a devise is made to several as a class or as tenants in common, or as joint tenants, and one or more of the devisees die before the testator, *946and another or others survive the testator, the share or shares of such as so die shall go to his or their descendants, if any; if none, to the surviving de-visees, unless a different disposition is made by the devisor.”

A similar provision of a will (and the same question under consideration here) was before this Court in the case of Shoenberg v. Lodenkemper’s Ex’r, 314 Ky. 105, 234 S.W.2d 501. In that case the Court held that the residuary legatees were not joint tenants, in contradistinction to tenants in common, because there were no words of survivorship and could not be tenants in common because they did not have equal rights to the possession of the whole estate. The Court also said the de-visees did not constitute a class because there were no words in the will to show that the testatrix intended to treat them in any way other than as specific persons. Consequently, the Court held that the testatrix died intestate as to that part of the estate which would have passed to the legatee who predeceased her, and that it passed to her heirs. That case is controlling here.

Judgment affirmed.
#### INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, Appellant, v. Earnest BROWN et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 3, 1956.

*921James Sampson, William A. Rice, Har-tan, for appellant.

J. Leonard Davis, Harlan, for appellees.

'CULLEN, Commissioner.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded compensation to Earnest Brown for total permanent disability, arising from a herniated intervertebral disc suffered in an accident in his employer’s coal mine. On appeal to the circuit court the award was upheld. On its appeal to this Court the employer maintains that the board erroneously permitted the claimant to introduce in rebuttal certain medical testimony that should have been introduced in chief, and that the hoard was not entitled to base its award on the evidence so erroneously admitted.

The evidence before the board was taken by deposition. The claimant, within the time allowed for preparing his case in chief, submitted the depositions of two doctors who expressed the opinion, based upon external examination of the claimant, that he had a herniated disc. Neither of these •doctors had employed a myelogram test, hut both stated that such a test ordinarily would be performed to determine the presence or absence of a herniated disc.

The employer introduced the depositions of a number of doctors who expressed the opinion that the alleged disability did not exist. One of these doctors had taken a myelogram test, which he stated showed clearly the absence of a herniated disc.

During the time allowed for taking evidence in rebuttal, the claimant was examined by two additional doctors, one of whom took a myelogram test. He testified that the test disclosed a herniated disc, and the other doctor 'Confirmed his opinion from the reported results of the test. It is the contention of the appellant that this latter testimony was not proper rebuttal evidence and should not have been considered.

In Perry McGlone Const. Co. v. Shaw, 283 Ky. 84, 140 S.W.2d 829 at page 830, this Court said:

> “* * * Appellant also objected to some of the evidence upon which the award of the full board was made 'because it was introduced in rebuttal when it was in fact evidence in chief. While some of the evidence objected to might properly have been introduced in rebuttal, in the main it should have been introduced in chief, but under section 4930 of the statutes (now KRS 342.260) the board is not required to follow strict technical rules of common law procedure and we are not therefore inclined to disturb the judgment confirming the award because of irregularity in introducing evidence in the particular indicated. * * * *»*

We adhere to the view expressed in the Shaw case.

The judgment is affirmed.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES
A Lehman Brothers Company

Via UPS

February 23, 2006
Karen Schluter
Citibank, NA
11l Wall Street, l4th Floor/Zone 3
New York, NY 10005

RE:SASCO 2005 - 1
Annual Officer's Certificate as to Compliance

Dear Ms. Schluter:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the period ending on
December 31, 2005:

1.     I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Master Servicer
during the preceding calendar year under the terms of the Trust Agreements
and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its duties, responsibilities or obligations under the
Agreements;

2.     Based on said review and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the
Master Servicer is not in default of its obligations under the terms of the
Trust Agreements in any material respect, or, if there is a default in the
fulfillment of its obligations, a description of each default or failure and
the nature and status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

3.     To the best of this Officer's knowledge, nothing has arose to lead
this Officer to believe that its Servicer has failed to perform any of its
duties, responsibilities and obligations under its Servicing Agreement during
the preceding calendar year;

4.     To the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer is not in
default of its obligations under the terms of its Servicing Agreement in any
material respect, or, if there is a default in the fulfillment of
its obligations, a description of each default or failure and the nature and
status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

5.     The Master Servicer has received from its Servicer such Servicer's
annual certificate of compliance and a copy of such Servicer's annual audit
report, in each case to the extent required under the applicable Servicing
Agreement, or, if any such certificate or report has not been received by the
Master Servicer, the Master Servicer is using its best reasonable efforts to
obtain such certificate or report.


Certified By:

/s/ R. Peter Karr
------------------
R. Peter Karr
Senior Vice President
Master Servicing Division
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Summer Infant, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Driscoll, Chief 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:



|March 27, 2008 |  | /s/JOSEPH DRISCOLLJoseph Driscoll Chief Financial
Officer
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                 Exhibit 4.13(a)

                            SOED - NUMBER OF WARRANTS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                                         NUMBER OF WARRANTS

<S>                                                          <C>
John Boyle                                                          76,718
Alexander Gordon Catto                                              38,359
Brendon Clouston                                                    57,851
Coppertop Concepts Limited                                          11,157
Lord Catto's Settlement of November 1976                            38,359
Noble Grossart Investments Limited                                   2,467
AB Services                                                         85,680
David Brock                                                          8,568
Paul Chestnutt                                                      42,840
John Fickling                                                       42,840
Five Oceans Foundation                                              42,840
Andrew Fraser                                                       12,852
Jonathan Horne                                                      53,550
Anthony Kennan                                                      43,268
Northern Edge Limited                                                4,284
Carl Openshaw                                                        8,568
Linda Reid                                                          64,260
Ian Cleland Ritchie                                                 71,543
William Martin Ritchie                                               8,568
Simon Rogers                                                        53,550
Scottish Enterprise                                                 17,564
Julian Summer                                                       42,840
TBI Financial Services Limited                                       8,568
The Hamilton Portfolio Investments Limited                         116,096
Christiaan van der Kuyl                                            117,810
                                                                 ---------
SUB TOTAL                                                        1,071,000
                                                                 ---------
Hamilton Portfolio Limited                                         214,250
Cairnsea Investments Limited                                       214,250
                                                                 ---------
TOTAL                                                            1,499,500
                                                                 =========
</TABLE>
#### Rovena JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27616.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM,

The offense is murder; the punishment, twenty years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed her personal affidavits stating that she no longer desires to prosecute this appeal and requests that the same be dismissed.

This request is accordingly granted, and the appeal is dismissed. ■ '
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

March 4 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk March 4 , 2020

160514 ( 30 )

JOHN DOES 11

- 18, JAN E DOE 1, and all

others similarly situated

, Plaintiff s

- Appellees

, SC: 160 514

v COA: 34 9073

Washtenaw CC: 13

- 001196

- CZ

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

GOVERNOR, FORMER DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FORMER

DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS FACILITIES

ADMINISTRATION, FORMER CHIEF DEPUTY

DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS FACILITIES

ADMINISTRATION, FORMER WARDEN OF

CHARLES EGELER RECEPTION AND

GUIDANCE CENTER, FORMER WARDEN OF

EARNEST C. BROOKS CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, FORMER WARDEN OF RICHARD

A . HANDLON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

FORMER WARDEN OF RICHARD A.

HANDLON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

FORMER WARDEN OF OAKS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, FORMER

WARDEN OF THUMB CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, FORMER WARDEN OF

CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

WARDEN OF KINROSS CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, FORMER WARDEN OF

NEWBERRY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and

FORMER WARDEN OF MICHIGAN

REFORMATORY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

Defendants

- Appellants

.

____________________________________ _____/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the defendants

- appellants to hold the

application for leave to appeal in abeyance for 100 days is GRANTED

. The proceedings

in this Court will be held in abeyance until June 19, 2020

.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MANUFACTURING RESOURCES 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Appellee

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SDS 

AMERICA, INC., INDUSTRIAL ENCLOSURES 

CORPORATION, dba Palmer Digital Group, 

COATES US INC., 

Intervenors

______________________

2024-1749

______________________

Appeal from the United States International Trade 

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1331.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

Case: 24-1749 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 08/29/2024
2 MANUFACTURING RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. ITC

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

August 29, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 29, 2024

Case: 24-1749 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 08/29/2024
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 27, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 27, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0326. DAMIA LEWIS v. SAMUEL NIGHTINGALE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2019CV320416