alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

WARREN E. JOSEPH, JR. 

NO. 2023 KW 0227

MAY 25, 2023

In Re: Warren E. Joseph, Jr., applying for supervisory writs, 

17th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafourche, No. 

248207. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., WOLFE AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 930. 8. 

JMG

EW

SMM

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 452

For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

4 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for

5 purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

6 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Belinda McGregor shall be held and

7 considered to have been selected for a diversity immigrant

8 visa for fiscal year 1999 as of the date of the enactment

9 of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

10 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Belinda McGregor,

11 or any child (as defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Immi12 gration and Nationality Act) of Belinda McGregor, enters
2

•S 452 IS

1 the United States before the date of the enactment of this

2 Act, he or she shall be considered to have entered and

3 remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligi4 ble for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Im5 migration and Nationality Act as of the date of the enact6 ment of this Act.

7 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

8 Upon the granting of permanent residence to Belinda

9 McGregor as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State

10 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one number

11 during the current fiscal year the total number of immi12 grant visas available to natives of the country of the alien’s

13 birth under section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nation14 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)).

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOHN MCANDREWS,

Petitioner

v.

THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE PA. 

SUPREME COURT,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 62 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6

th day of October, 2022, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Application for an 

Immediate Hearing are DENIED.
# Publicatieblad C 178/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0995 |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 178 |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 59e jaargang18 mei 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0995

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 178

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

59e jaargang18 mei 2016

---

| Nummer | Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rectificaties |
| 2016/C 178/01 | Rectificatie van Standpunt (EU) nr. 1/2016 van de Raad in eerste lezing met het oog op de vaststelling van een verordening van het Europees Parlement en de Raad betreffende het Spoorwegbureau van de Europese Unie en tot intrekking van Verordening (EG) nr. 881/2004 — Door de Raad vastgesteld op 10 december 2015( PB C 56 van 12.2.2016 ) | 1 |

Nummer

Inhoud

Bladzijde

Rectificaties

2016/C 178/01

Rectificatie van Standpunt (EU) nr. 1/2016 van de Raad in eerste lezing met het oog op de vaststelling van een verordening van het Europees Parlement en de Raad betreffende het Spoorwegbureau van de Europese Unie en tot intrekking van Verordening (EG) nr. 881/2004 — Door de Raad vastgesteld op 10 december 2015( PB C 56 van 12.2.2016 )

( PB C 56 van 12.2.2016 )

1

---

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

Rectificaties

| 18.5.2016 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | C 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2016

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

C 178/1

---

Rectificatie van Standpunt (EU) nr. 1/2016 van de Raad in eerste lezing met het oog op de vaststelling van een verordening van het Europees Parlement en de Raad betreffende het Spoorwegbureau van de Europese Unie en tot intrekking van Verordening (EG) nr. 881/2004 — Door de Raad vastgesteld op 10 december 2015

(
  Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie C 56 van 12 februari 2016
  )

(2016/C 178/01)

Bladzijde 39, artikel 65, lid 10:

in plaats van:

„10.   Vóór 30 april van het jaar N + 2 verleent het Europees Parlement op aanbeveling van de Raad, die met gekwalificeerde meerderheid van stemmen besluit, de uitvoerend directeur kwijting met betrekking tot de uitvoering van de begroting van begrotingsjaar N.”,

lezen:

„10.   Vóór 15 mei van het jaar N + 2 verleent het Europees Parlement op aanbeveling van de Raad, die met gekwalificeerde meerderheid van stemmen besluit, de uitvoerend directeur kwijting met betrekking tot de uitvoering van de begroting van begrotingsjaar N.”.

---
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We have issued our reports dated July 14, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, schedules, and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended May 1, 2011. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Magma Design Automation, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-74278, effective November 30, 2001, File No. 333-92324, effective July 12, 2002, File No. 333-108348, effective August 29, 2003, File No. 333-112326, effective January 30, 2004, File No. 333-122656, effective February 9, 2005, File No. 333-132333, effective March 10, 2006, File No. 333-143551, effective June 6, 2007, File No. 333-151681, effective June 16, 2008, File No. 333-161743, effective September 4, 2009,  File No. 333-165462, effective March 15, 2010, and File No. 333-170198, effective October 28, 2010).


/s/ G RANT T HORNTON LLP


San Francisco, California


July 14, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7165

DOUGLAS A. TURNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COLLIE RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional

Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General

for South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-03-4124-24BH-4)

Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 15, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas A. Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Douglas A. Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

for failure to prosecute his claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Turner that failure

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Turner failed to object to

the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Turner has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.3

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

           I, Reuven Shahar, as Chief Financial Officer and Vice President,
Finance, of B.V.R. Systems (1998) Ltd. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:

           (1) the accompanying Form 20-F report for the period ending December
31, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

           (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  May 13, 2003
                                    /s/Reuven Shahar
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Reuven Shahar
                                    Chief Financial Officer and Vice President,
                                    Finance
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 15 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-172328) pertaining to Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 17 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-172328) and Amendment No. 420 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 1, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.












/s/ Ernst & Young LLP









Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


August 22, 2014
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 377

To eliminate the special reserve funds created for the Savings Association

Insurance Fund and the Deposit Insurance Fund, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs

A BILL

To eliminate the special reserve funds created for the Savings

Association Insurance Fund and the Deposit Insurance

Fund, 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. ELIMINATION OF SAIF AND DIF SPECIAL RE4 SERVES.

5 (a) SAIF SPECIAL RESERVE.—Section 11(a)(6) of

6 the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(6))

7 is amended by striking subparagraph (L).
2

•S 377 IS

1 (b) DIF SPECIAL RESERVE.—Section 2704 of the

2 Deposit Insurance Funds Act of 1996 (12 U.S.C. 1821

3 note) is amended—

4 (1) by striking subsection (b); and

5 (2) in subsection (d)—

6 (A) by striking paragraph (4);

7 (B) in paragraph (6)(C)(i), by striking

8 ‘‘(6) and (7)’’ and inserting ‘‘(5), (6), and (7)’’;

9 and

10 (C) in paragraph (6)(C), by striking clause

11 (ii) and inserting the following:

12 ‘‘(ii) by redesignating paragraph (8)

13 as paragraph (5).’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7147
MARK A. MCQUINN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-957) Submitted: September 18, 2002 Decided: October 24, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. McQuinn, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mark A. McQuinn seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that McQuinn has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See McQuinn v. Angelone , No. CA-01-957 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Duff and Hodges

EDWARD L. MOHLER, JR.

v. Record No. 0678-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY CHIEF JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AUGUST 8, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY George E. Honts, III, Judge William E. Bobbitt, Jr., Public Defender, for appellant. Marla Lynn Graff, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Edward L. Mohler, Jr. appeals the circuit court's order revoking previously suspended sentences for violating the terms of his probation. On appeal, Mohler contends that the trial

court's order must be reversed because he was denied a preliminary revocation hearing. Mohler also argues that the delay in the court's taking action in regard to his detention prior to the final revocation hearing violated his due process rights. We disagree and affirm. "The absence of a preliminary hearing to determine temporary detention is irrelevant after a full evidentiary hearing has been conducted to determine whether probation or parole should be

revoked." Howie v. Commonwealth , 222 Va. 625, 631, 283 S.E.2d 197, 200 (1981). After Mohler was advised in writing of the

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.2 probation conditions he was alleged to have violated, he wasafforded a full evidentiary hearing at which he both crossexamined witnesses and presented evidence in his behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge decided to revoke appellant's suspended sentences and probation. The record does not show that Mohler's due process rights were violated because he was not given a preliminary hearing. See id. Lastly, Mohler's argument that the two month delay before the final revocation hearing was "so great so as to violate his due process rights" is barred from appeal because he failed to raise this question before the trial court. Rule 5A:18; see also

Cottrell v. Commonwealth , 12 Va. App. 570, 574, 405 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1991) (holding that this procedural bar applies even to a defendant's constitutional claim). Moreover, we find nothing inherently prejudicial about Mohler's two month wait for his hearing which, according to the record, was "scheduled as soon as

feasible."

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Vangent, Inc.(the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 28,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the ‘‘Report’’), I, John M. Curtis, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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. |

 

 
|                  | /s/ John M. Curtis                          |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------|
| August 11,  2008 | John M. Curtis                              |
|                  |  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7949

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLARENCE EDWARD HAYNES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-90-30-A, CA-95-1109-AM)

Submitted: March 19, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996

Before ERVIN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Edward Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson,

III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia,

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

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. Appellant's claim that the rule of

lenity should be applied in sentencing for crack cocaine offenses

is without merit. See United States v. Fisher, 58 F.3d 96, 99 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 3270 (U.S. Oct. 10,

1995) (No. 95-5923). His claims that the sentencing court failed to

make the required factual findings were waived by his failure to

assert them on direct appeal and are belied by the record. Stone v.

Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.1 (1976); United States v. Emanuel, 869

F.2d 795 (4th Cir. 1989). The district court found Appellant's

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel "too conclusory to warrant further inquiry." However, Appellant may be able to particularize these claims to state a potentially meritorious ground for

relief. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Coleman v. Peyton,

340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir. 1965). Therefore, we affirm the district court's order denying Appellant's § 2255 motion as modified

to reflect that the denial of relief is without prejudice to

Appellant's ability to file a subsequent § 2255 motion to allege,

in detail, his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 AS MODIFIED
# Iris Oifigiúill C NaN/2016

| | ISSN 1977-107X |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúill
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | Eagrán Speisialta (
  1
  ) |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 5914 Meitheamh 2016 |

ISSN 1977-107X

Iris Oifigiúill

an Aontais Eorpaigh

Eagrán Speisialta (
  1
  )

1

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

5914 Meitheamh 2016

---

| | Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Ceartúcháin |
| | Ceartúchán ar an Socrú Nua don Ríocht Aontaithe Laistigh den Aontas Eorpach ( IO C 69 I, 23.2.2016 ) | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

Ceartúcháin

Ceartúchán ar an Socrú Nua don Ríocht Aontaithe Laistigh den Aontas Eorpach ( IO C 69 I, 23.2.2016 )

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Faoin tagairt C 213 a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh. |

---

(1)   Faoin tagairt C 213 a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh.

1

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

Ceartúcháin

| 14.6.2016 | GA | Iris Oifigiúill an Aontais Eorpaigh | 1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2016

GA

Iris Oifigiúill an Aontais Eorpaigh

1

---

Ceartúchán ar an Socrú Nua don Ríocht Aontaithe Laistigh den Aontas Eorpach

(
  Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 69 I Eagrán Speisialta Gaeilge an 23 Feabhra 2016
  )

Leathanach 5, Iarscríbhinn I, mír 4, an dara fomhír:

in ionad:

“Ní dochar é an méid sin d’fhorbairt an leabhair rialacha aonair ná do shásraí an Aontais maidir le formhaoirseacht stuamachta ar an macraileibhéal le haghaidh rioscaí sistéamacha airgeadais san Aontas a chosc agus a mhaolú ná ní dochar é do chumhachtaí an Aontais, ar cumhachtaí iad atá ann cheana, chun gníomhaíocht a dhéanamh chun freagairt a thabhairt ar bhagairtí don chobhsaíocht airgeadais.”,

léitear:

léitear:

“Ní dochar é an méid sin d’fhorbairt an leabhair rialacha aonair ná do shásraí an Aontais maidir le formhaoirseacht stuamachta ar an macraileibhéal le haghaidh rioscaí sistéamacha airgeadais san Aontas a chosc agus a mhaolú ná ní dochar é do chumhachtaí an Aontais, ar cumhachtaí iad atá ann cheana, chun an ghníomhaíocht a dhéanamh atá riachtanach chun freagairt a thabhairt ar bhagairtí don chobhsaíocht airgeadais.”.

Leathanach 9, Iarscríbhinn I, Roinn E:

in ionad:

in ionad:

| “2. | Tiocfaidh an Cinneadh seo i bhfeidhm ar an dáta a gcuirfidh rialtas na Ríochta Aontaithe in iúl d’Ardrúnaí na Comhairle go bhfuil cinnte ag an Ríocht Aontaithe fanacht ina comhalta den Aontas Eorpach.”, |
| --- | --- |

“2.

Tiocfaidh an Cinneadh seo i bhfeidhm ar an dáta a gcuirfidh rialtas na Ríochta Aontaithe in iúl d’Ardrúnaí na Comhairle go bhfuil cinnte ag an Ríocht Aontaithe fanacht ina comhalta den Aontas Eorpach.”,

léitear:

léitear:

| “2. | Gabhfaidh éifeacht leis an gCinneadh seo ar an dáta céanna a gcuirfidh Rialtas na Ríochta Aontaithe in iúl d’Ardrúnaí na Comhairle go bhfuil cinnte ag an Ríocht Aontaithe fanacht ina comhalta den Aontas Eorpach.”. |
| --- | --- |

“2.

Gabhfaidh éifeacht leis an gCinneadh seo ar an dáta céanna a gcuirfidh Rialtas na Ríochta Aontaithe in iúl d’Ardrúnaí na Comhairle go bhfuil cinnte ag an Ríocht Aontaithe fanacht ina comhalta den Aontas Eorpach.”.

---