alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 211 (Tuesday, October 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27987]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
October 30, 2000.
    A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, November 2, 2000 at 11 
a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(A) and (10), permit consideration for the scheduled matters at 
the closed meeting.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting scheduled Thursday, 
November 2, 2000 will be:
    <bullet> Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
    <bullet> Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings 
of an enforcement nature
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, mattes have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: October 25, 2000.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27987 Filed 10-27-00; 11:13 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
| 1. | It has been three years and Party A still not get the approval from the government, both parties agree to cancel the patent transfer agreement |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Party A has paid RMB 7,030,000 to Party B on 2008; Party B agrees to pay the RMB 7,030,000 to Party A in three installment. The first installment(RMB 2,000,000) will be paid by June 30, 2011, the second installment(RMB 2,000,000) will be paid by July 30, 2011 and the third installment(RMB 3,030,000) will be paid by August 30,2011. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Arbitration: All disputes in connection with this agreement thereof shall be settled friendly through negotiations. If party B failure to pay RMB 7,030,000 in full by August, 30 2011, Party A has the rights to send the case to Party A’s district court. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | This agreement is made out in two originals, one for each party. Both of them have the same force and effect. This agreement will be effective after the general managers of both parties sign. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
**Exhibit23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM

 

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8, No.333-85300 pertaining to the American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 2000 StockIncentive Plan, as Amended, the Registration Statement on Form S-8, No.333-61602 pertaining to the American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 1998 StockIncentive Plan, as Amended, the American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 2000Stock Incentive Plan of American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. and theRegistration Statement Form S-8, No. 333-129686 pertaining to the American BankNote Holographics, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated March 31,2006 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules,which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 
|   |   | ****/s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP**** |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|

 

 

FlorhamPark, New Jersey

March31, 2006

 

----
**Exhibit99.2**

CERTIFICATION

 

I, S. Gene Thompson, VicePresident & Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

 

                1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Gasel Transportation Lines, Inc.;

 

                2. Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

                3. Based upon my knowledge, the financial statementsand other financial information included in this quarterly report fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;

 

                4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theregistrant and have:

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of adate within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the“Evaluation Date”); and

 

c) Presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

                5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

                6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that could significantlyaffect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

 
| Dated:  November 27, 2002 | by: /s/ S. Gene  Thompson                                       |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | S. Gene Thompson, Vice  President & Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

396 

CA 13-02040 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL NEGRON, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. ARNOLD OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark

H. Dadd, A.J.), entered October 29, 2013 pursuant to a CPLR article 78

proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Matter of Sanchez v Evans, 111 AD3d 1315).

Entered: March 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
DA 08-0239

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2009 MT 46N

CHOTEAU CATTLE CO.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

CHRISTY and LEW CLARK,

Respondents and Appellees.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Ninth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Teton, Cause No. 371

Honorable Laurie McKinnon, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Matthew Williams; Williams and Jent, PLLP, Bozeman, Montana

For Appellees:

Gregory Wade Duncan; Duncan Law Office, Helena, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: February 4, 2009

Decided: February 18, 2009

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

February 19 2009
2

Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

OperatingRules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandumdecision shall not be cited

as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk ofthe Supreme Court and

its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court’s

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 This action was filed as a Complaint of Dissatisfied Water User in the MontanaNinth

Judicial District Court, Teton County, pursuant to § 85-5-301, MCA. After notice to

interested persons and an evidentiary hearing, the District Court dismissed.

¶3 A person may bring a petition as a dissatisfied water user under § 85-5-301, MCA, if

he has the right to use water and claims that he is entitled to more water or to a prior right to

the use of water. After hearing testimony and the arguments of counsel, the District Court

concluded that the claims of the petitioner below did not meet the criteria of the statute and

dismissed. We find no reason in fact or in law to disturb the District Court’s order and

therefore we affirm.

¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our

1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum

opinions. The issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law.
3

¶5 Affirmed.

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

We concur:

/S/ JOHN WARNER

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
#### Jerry ST. JOHN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 76-1178.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 3, 1977.

*895Marianne Wesson Cantrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Richel Rivers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellant.

Ray J. McQuary, Staff Counsel for Inmates, Darrington Unit, Rosharon, Tex., for petitioner-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, AINSWORTH and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The district court granted petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus, holding that the admission of evidence of prior convictions solely to show general criminal disposition violated due process of law. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Estelle v. Williams,*425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976), we reverse.

On cross-examination of petitioner’s mother, the prosecution elicited evidence that petitioner had only recently returned from a stay in the state penitentiary. Defense counsel objected that such information was hearsay, and his objection was overruled. Four questions later, defense counsel belatedly objected to the admission of this evidence of extraneous offenses. At no time did counsel ask that the evidence be stricken or that a limiting instruction be given. The state court affirmed the conviction because of counsel’s failure to make a contemporaneous and specific objection to the penitentiary reference.

Counsel’s failure to object at the time such evidence was admitted is precisely the type of “inexcusable procedural default” discussed in *Estelle*v. *Williams.*

> [Tjhere are two situations in which a conviction should be left standing despite the claimed infringement of a constitutional right. The first situation arises when it can be shown that the substantive right in question was consensually relinquished. The other situation arises *when a defendant has made an “inexcusable procedural default” in failing to object at a time when a substantive right could have been protected.*

96 S.Ct. at 1697 (Powell, J., concurring) (emphasis added). A timely objection could have prevented the introduction of this evidence; a motion to strike or to give a limiting instruction could have cured some of the prejudicial effect. In light of *Estelle v. Williams,*counsel’s failure to object to the infringement of a trial-type right bars the client from later raising this substantive right in a collateral proceeding.

Texas’ contemporaneous objection rule furthers a valid state interest in that it allows the correction of trial-type errors at the time rather than requiring a new trial when counsel fails to bring errors to the state’s attention until it is too late. The grant of habeas relief to this petitioner must be REVERSED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

IGNACIO CARTEGENA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 538 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 10.2

January 23, 2006


Mr. Bart Silberman
Moonlight Graham Inc.
1001 W. 17th St. Suite E
Costa Mesa, CA  92627


Dear Bart:

Please let this letter serve as the terms of your employment with the Denim
Apparel Group.

You will be paid One Hundred and Twenty-Thousand ($120,000.00) Dollars annually.
Your compensation will be paid monthly on the first and the fifteenth of every
month. You will receive up to Seven Hundred ($700.00) for car expenses including
gas and oil. As additional consideration, you will receive Two Million Five
Hundred Thousand (2,500,000) Shares of Denim Apparel Group (DPGP) which will be
restricted under Rule 144.

Upon the one year anniversary of the merger, you will have the right to purchase
the controlling interest in DPGP if the closing price of the common stock is not
at least One (1.00) Dollar per share. This option will expire on the day
following the anniversary. A bonus of ten percent of the company's net profits
over sales of $5,000,000 will be paid to your annually.

Additionally, you will receive the right to purchase 500,000 shares of common
stock at a fifty (50%) percent discount to the market price at the day of
closing beginning one hundred and eighty days from the closing of the
acquisition.

Finally, your health insurance for you and your family, approved travel
expenses, and an approved office in Orange County will also be provided.

Your title will be President of Moonlight Graham Inc. and you will have creative
control of the brand.

The term of this agreement will be for three years and it will be governed by
the laws of the State of Nevada.


Sincerely,
DENIM APPAREL GROUP




Eric. Joffe
President
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 13
- 00363
- CV

IN RE INNOVATIVE PLA STICS CORP. RELATOR

------------ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------ The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied . Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied

. PER CURIAM
PANEL: G ARDNER , J

. ; L IVINGSTON , C.J. ; and GABRIEL , J.

DELIVERED : November 1, 2013

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52 .8 (d).
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 Gasel Transportation Lines Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) I, S. Gene Thompson, President, Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



Date:  April 25, 2006



/s/  S. Gene Thompson

President, Treasurer

& Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6564
PERRY L. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES M. TURPIN; SUSAN MCNEELY; MARY STEINS, Defendants - Appellees, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; THE UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-40-1) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 20, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Perry L. Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Hefter Davis, Raleigh, North Carolina; Roy Asberry Cooper III, Marry S. Mercer, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Perry L. Crawford appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Crawford v. Turpin , No. CA-01-40-1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2004). 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
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 14 - 00009 - CR JAMES CHARLES BEDREE , APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 181st District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 23,626 - B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding

June 26 , 2014 

### ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant James Charles Bedree appeals from h is conviction for indecency with a child. On June 20 , 2014, we received a request from the court reporter requesting an extension of time wherein she stated that appellant had not completed payment for the record even though he was supposed to forward the b alance directly to her. Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 181st District Court (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine the following:2

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the a ppeal; 2. whether appellant is indigent; and, if so, 3. whether appellant is entitled to a free record . The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this cour t by July 2 8 , 2014 . Should further time be needed to perform these tasks, then same must be r equested before July 2 8 , 2014 . Furthermore, the court reporter’s request for extension of time i s granted , and the record will not be due until further notice from this court. It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6668

ANTONIO SHEPPARD WILLIAMS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GALE JONES , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Michael F. Urbanski , Chief District Judge. ( 7:17

- cv
- 00475

- MFU

- RSB )

Submitted : Dec ember 2 0 , 2018 Decided: December 26, 2018

Before D IAZ and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Antonio Sheppard Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Sheppard Wi lliams appeal s the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because Williams failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies . On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.
See 4th Cir. R. 34( b). Because Williams’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Williams has forfeited appellate review of the court’s
order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conte ntions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc.
 Santa Ana, California
  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc.filed on February 2, 2007 (File No. 333-140417) of our report dated June 23, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., which appears in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011.
  /s/BDO USA, LLP
 Costa Mesa, California
 June 23, 2011
#### Buzek, d. b. a. Flatow, Riley & Co. et al., Appellants, *v.*Stewart, Mayor, et al., Appellees.

(No. 28413

Decided December 24, 1940.)

*Mr. Francis A. Hoover*and *Mr. John Clark Molloy,*for appellants.

*Mr. JoJm D. Ellis,*city solicitor, and *Mr. Henry M. Bruestle,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Turner, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 pertaining to the eToys Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
the eToys Inc. 1999 Directors Stock Option Plan, the eToys Inc. 1999 Stock
Option Plan, the eToys Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and the BabyCenter, Inc.
1997 Stock Option Plan in the related Prospectuses of our report dated
April 26, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
eToys Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
March 31, 2000.



                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP




Los Angeles, California
June 1, 2000