alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MORTGAGE ASSETS MANAGEMENT, 

LLC,

Respondent

v.

LEROY WELLS IN HIS CAPACITY AS 

HEIR OF JESSIE WELLS, AND UNKNOWN 

HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS AND 

ALL PERSONS, FIRMS OR 

ASSOCIATIONS CLAIMING RIGHT, TITLE 

OR INTEREST FROM OR UNDER JESSIE 

WELLS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 401 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3440 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3440

 To designate a peak in the State of Nevada as Maude Frazier Mountain.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2013

  Ms. Titus introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate a peak in the State of Nevada as Maude Frazier Mountain.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF MAUDE FRAZIER MOUNTAIN IN THE STATE OF 
              NEVADA.

    (a) In General.--The peak of Frenchman Mountain located at latitude 
3610'45" N, by longitude 11459'52" W in the State of Nevada shall be 
known and designated as ``Maude Frazier Mountain''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
record, or other paper of the United States to the peak referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to ``Maude Frazier 
Mountain''.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered May 15, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00664
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C .W. , A CHILD On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11
- 667 

### O RDER
We GR ANT appellant’s May 13, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal filed in the trial court on May 10, 2013 is deemed timely for jurisdictional purposes.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY ,

Appellant , v. Case No. 5D2 1 -1089 LT Case No. 20 15 -C A -2 93 4
DANI EL KITTILSEN,

Appellee

.

____________________________ _______ ___/ Decision filed Augu st 23, 2022 Non f inal Appeal from the Circuit Court f or Osc eola County, M argaret H

. Schreiber , Judge. Sco t E

. Samis , of T raub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., and Amy S. Farrior, of Buell & Elligett, P.A., Tampa, and Lee Jacobson, of Hale, Hale & Jacobson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. WALLIS, SASSO and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Christopher J. Willi,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the “Registrant”);

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material 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 report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:

 

(a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated the effectivenessof the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation;

 

(c) disclosed in this reportany change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  October 28, 2003 |                  |
|-------------------------|-----------------------|
|                    |                  |
| /s/                     | CHRISTOPHER  J. WILLI |   |
| Christopher J. Willi    |                  |
| Chief Financial Officer |                  |
|                         |                       |  |  |  |

 

1

----
----

| 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control      over financial reporting. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | August 12, 2010 | /s/ Ronald H. Braam          |
|--------|-----------------|------------------------------|
|   |            | Ronald      H. Braam         |
|   |            | Chief      Executive Officer |

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-53805) and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-86997) of Atlantic Data Services, Inc. of our report dated April 13, 1998
relating to the financial statements and schedule of Atlantic Data Services,
Inc. as of March 31, 1998 and for the year then ended included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2000.


                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
June 16, 2000
9

Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number of U.S. registered products to the table below. When you are 

finished, click on the “Update Fields” button to automatically fill in the totals.

Update Fields

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

PART 1 Eddy current 

inspections 1 $ 85.00 0 $ 85.00 495 $42,075.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $42,075

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

If skin cracks are found 

then HFEC open hole 

inspection is required in 

accordance with Boeing 

SB 737-57-1318, 

Original Issue, dated 

May 15, 2013 (data 

taken from Costs of 

Compliance in AD 

2014-12-13)

86 $7,310.00 0 $7,310.00

If wing rear spar chord 

and web cracks are 

found then repair is

required. Work-hours 

associated with typical 

SRM upper chord and 

web repairs are used

3700 $ 314,500.00 0 $ 314,500.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
10

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* ☐ NO ☒

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* ☐ NO ☒

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES ☐ NO ☒

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* ☐ NO ☒

*Explanation:
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                   ACT MANUFACTURING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                 SUBSIDIARIES

The following are subsidiaries of ACT Manufacturing, Inc. and all are wholly-
owned except for GSS Array Technology Public Company Limited of which ACT
Manufacturing owns 99.02%:

Entity Name                                    Jurisdiction of Organization
-----------                                    ----------------------------

Advanced Component Technologies Limited             Ireland
ACT Manufacturing Securities Corp.                  Massachusetts
CMC Industries, Inc.                                Delaware
ACT France Holdings SAS                             France
ACT Manufacturing US Holdings, LLC                  Delaware
GSS Array Technology Public Company Limited         Thailand
ACT Manufacturing Holdings UK Limited               United Kingdom

The following is a subsidiary of ACT Manufacturing Holdings UK Limited:

Entity Name                                    Jurisdiction of Organization
-----------                                    ----------------------------

ACT Manufacturing UK Limited                        United Kingdom


The following are subsidiaries of CMC Industries, Inc.:

Entity Name                                    Jurisdiction of Organization
-----------                                    ----------------------------

CMC Inmuebles, S.A. de C.V.                         Mexico
CMC Industrias Hermosillo, S.A. de C.V.             Mexico
Servicos y Administracion de Sonora, S.A. de C.V.   Mexico
CMC Industries, Inc. Taiwan Branch (U.S.A.)         Taiwan

The following are subsidiaries of ACT France Holdings SAS:

Entity Name                                    Jurisdiction of Organization
-----------                                    ----------------------------

ACT France SAS                                      France
ACT Manufacturing France SA                         France
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3522 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer 

for sale current group health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the minimum essential health insurance coverage requirement, 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3522 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Employee Health Care 

3 Protection Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. IF YOU LIKE YOUR GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE 

5 PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP IT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any provision of 

7 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (including 

8 any amendment made by such Act or by the Health Care 

9 and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010), a health insur10 ance issuer that has in effect health insurance coverage 

11 in the group market on any date during 2013 may after 

12 such date offer such coverage for sale through December 

13 31, 2018, in such market outside of an Exchange estab14 lished under section 1311 or 1321 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

15 18031, 18041). A group health plan shall not be treated 

16 as not complying with the requirements of such Act (or 

17 the amendments made by such Acts) insofar as it provides 

18 health benefits through health insurance coverage that is 

19 permitted under the previous sentence. 

20 (b) TREATMENT AS GRANDFATHERED HEALTH

21 PLAN IN SATISFACTION OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COV22 ERAGE.—Health insurance coverage described in sub23 section (a) shall be treated as a grandfathered health plan 

24 for purposes of the amendment made by section 1501(b) 

25 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 3522 RDS

1 (c) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be 

2 construed as affecting the authority of States with respect 

3 to the regulation of health insurance coverage in the group 

4 market. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 11, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
     EXHIBIT 11.1

SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED                 NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                      DECEMBER 31,                       DECEMBER 31,
                                                                1999              1998              1999              1998
                                                            -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
<S>                                                         <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Net loss applicable to common stock                         $  (504,906)      $  (332,746)      $(1,004,926)      $(1,474,826)

Weighted average number of common shares equivalent:
Common shares outstanding                                     8,242,897         4,624,636         6,286,991         4,557,769

Common equivalent shares representing shares
  issuable upon exercise of stock options and warrants                0                 0                 0                 0

Incremental common equivalent shares (calculated
  using the higher of end of period or average fair
  market value)                                                       0                 0                 0                 0

    Total weighted average shares - as adjusted               8,242,897         4,624,636         6,286,991         4,557,769

    Basic                                                         (0.06)            (0.07)            (0.16)            (0.32)
    Diluted                                                       (0.06)            (0.07)            (0.16)            (0.32)
</TABLE>


                                                                              15
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
  REGARDING
THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
  FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008
  In
connection with the Annual Report of Heritage Commerce Corp (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence D. McGovern,
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:
  (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.
  March 16,
2009






/s/ Lawrence D.
McGovern


Lawrence D. McGovern


Chief Financial Officer
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 96 -C R

______________________________ GARY TRI STON GUI CE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 188th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 36,392-A

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issI n ca u s e number 06-08-00095-CR (trial number 35,832-A), Guice wa s convicted of 1 ag g ravated robbe ry

and sente nced to life imprisonment. I n cause number 06-08-0 0 0 9 7 -C R(trial number 36,394-A ), Guice was convicted of a g g ravated kidnappingand sente nced to life imp ri so nme nt. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Gar y T r is to nG u ic e a

p p e a ls f r o m h is c o n v ic ti o no nh is o p e np le a o f g u il ty to thr e e felony
o ff en s es i n a sing le proc eeding . In this case, number ed 06-08- 00096-CR (trial ca use number 36,392-A), Guice wa s convicted of sexual assault. Guic e p l ed g uilty to the offe nse. The issue of punis hme nt w a s tr ie d to th e tr ia l c ourt , whic h s e nte nc e d h im t o tw e nty y e ars ' imp ri so nme nt i n th is
c a se , to ru

n c on c ur re ntl y wi th t he se nte nc e s in

the oth e r t

wo c a se s. 1 On appe al, Guice raises two c ontentions of err or. F irs t , he ar g ues that the trial c ourt committed reve rsible er

ror by failingto consider the entire rang e of punishment f or the off ense, a nd
se c on d, that th e punis hme nt i mpo se d v iol a te d th e ri g ht a g a ins t c ru e l and unus ua l pu

nis hme nt. We addre ssed these issues in deta il in our opinion of this date on his a ppeal in ca

use number 06-08-00095- CR. For the re asons stated ther ein, we a ffirm the judg ment.

J o s hR . M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: Dec ember 22, 2008 Date D ecide d: Dec ember 23, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Trustees 

LaSalle Hotel Properties: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statement on Forms S-3 (No. 333-131384, 333-51476, 333-44872, 333-76373) and on Forms S-8 (No. 333-125058, 333-104056, 333-86911, 333-72265) of LaSalle Hotel Properties of our reports dated February 22, 2007, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of LaSalle Hotel Properties as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2006, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of LaSalle Hotel Properties. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

February 22, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30499

Summary Calendar

JAMES DENNIS WILSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

POLICE DEPARTMENT OF BOSSIER CITY; CHIEF MCWILLIAMS; JASON

JENKINS; JEFF COLE; RICHARD MCGEE,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:10-CV-1777

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Dennis Wilson, Louisiana prisoner # 131553, proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis, challenges the dismissal with prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In his complaint, Wilson claimed there

was no probable cause for his purse-snatching arrest (he was subsequently

convicted for that offense) because the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant

relied on false information.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 2, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-30499 Document: 00511652431 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2011
No. 11-30499

Wilson contends the district court erred by: characterizing his complaint

as frivolous; dismissing his complaint with, instead of without, prejudice; and

determining his claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87

(1994). A dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is reviewed for abuse

of discretion. E.g., Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).

“[T]o recover damages for [an] allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would

render a conviction or sentence invalid”, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove the

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal or otherwise

invalidated by official action. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (footnote omitted). 

Therefore, “the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the

plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if

it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate

that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”. Id. at 487.

Although “a claim of unlawful arrest, standing alone, does not necessarily

implicate the validity of a criminal prosecution following the arrest”, Mackey v.

Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original), the crux of

Wilson’s § 1983 claim is that testimony rejected by the jury is, in fact, true. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that Wilson’s claim is

barred by Heck. Wilson has also failed to demonstrate the court erred in

dismissing his claim as frivolous. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 283-84 (5th

Cir. 1994) (dismissing claims as frivolous and concluding dismissal with

prejudice of prisoner’s § 1983 claim was permitted under Heck).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-30499 Document: 00511652431 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2011