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

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 171 (Monday, November 3, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
(Committees not listed did not meet)
  No committee meetings were held.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6731

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KHOJANDI BERNARD LANDON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00252-JRS-1; 3:06-cv-00803-JRS)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khojandi Bernard Landon, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Khojandi Bernard Landon seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Landon has not

made the requisite showing. 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
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)(i)

STEPHEN E. ROTH

DIRECT LINE: (202) 383-0158

Internet: sroth@sablaw.com



                                October 31, 2001

VIA EDGAR TRANSMISSION
----------------------

Board of Directors
GE Capital Life Assurance
 Company of New York
125 Park Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017-5529

          Re:   GE Capital Life Separate Account II
                -----------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

          We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption
"Legal Matters" in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of
Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 filed
by GE Capital Life Separate Account II for certain flexible premium variable
deferred annuity contracts (File No. 333-47016).  In giving this consent, we do
not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under
Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

                              Very truly yours,

                              SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP



                              By: /s/ Stephen E. Roth
                                  -------------------
                                  Stephen E. Roth
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: December 15, 2016 522319

________________________________ In the Matter of ALLAH KASIEM, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 25, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

__________ Allah Kasiem, Alden, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Petitioner, an inmate, submitted a written work assignment to a female instructor that contained sexual language as well as personal references to the instructor and her family. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with stalking and harassment. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of harassment, but not guilty of stalking. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and-2- 522319

this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. 1 Petitioner's sole contention is that he was improperly denied an inmate witness whose testimony presumably would have bolstered his defense that his original written assignment was switched with the one containing inappropriate references when the instructor left the room. To that end, he argues that the Hearing Officer did not inquire into the reason that this inmate purportedly refused to testify or provide petitioner with a witness refusal form. Petitioner's argument is belied by the record, which reveals that the Hearing Officer showed petitioner a copy of this inmate's refusal form during the hearing. In addition, the refusal form, which was signed by the inmate, is part of the hearing record and indicates that he did not wish to testify because he had "no knowledge whats [sic] going on with [petitioner's] situation." Furthermore, there is no indication that this inmate ever agreed to testify. In view of the foregoing, petitioner was not deprived of his constitutional right to call witnesses (see Matter of Cortorreal v Annucci, 28 NY3d 54, 59-60 [2016]; Matter of Jamison v Fischer, 119 AD3d 1306, 1306 [2014]; Matter of Tulloch v Fischer, 90 AD3d 1370, 1371 [2011]). Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

1 Although Supreme Court improperly transferred the proceeding to this Court as the verified petition does not raise the issue of substantial evidence, we nevertheless retain jurisdiction in the interest of judicial economy (see Matter of Johnson v Annucci, 141 AD3d 996, 997 n [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 901 [2016]).-3- 522319

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1176V Filed: June 26, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

JENNIFER CLAYPOOL,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Causation-In-Fact; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christ opher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Daniel Anthony Principato, U.S. Department of Just ice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On June 22, 2018, petitioner filed a petit ion for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she receiv ed a Tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on June 22, 2016, and ther eafter suffered from a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“S IRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).On June 22, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent has conc luded that a preponder ance of evidence stablishes that petitioner’s injury was caused -in-fact by the adminis tration of the Tdap vaccine on June 22, 2016. Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites fo r compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 5.

In view of respondent’s positio n and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                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 on Form 10-Q of SEEC, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2002 (the "Report"), the
undersigned , in the capacities and dates listed below, hereby 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.


Date: August 14, 2002                    By:       /s/ Ravindra Koka
                                             -------------------------------
                                                     Ravindra Koka
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer
                                                     and Director


Date: August 14, 2002                    By:     /s/ Richard J. Goldbach
                                             --------------------------------
                                                   Richard J. Goldbach
                                              Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                                        Officer
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Billy F. Mitcham, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mitcham Industries, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Billy F. Mitcham, Jr. Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.  Chief Executive Officer  June 14, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 829 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 829

To deauthorize the project for navigation, Searsport Harbor, Searsport, 
                                 Maine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 1999

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To deauthorize the project for navigation, Searsport Harbor, Searsport, 
                                 Maine.

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

SECTION 1. DEAUTHORIZATION OF PROJECT FOR NAVIGATION, SEARSPORT HARBOR, 
              MAINE.

    (a) Deauthorization.--The portion of the project for navigation, 
Searsport Harbor, Searsport, Maine, authorized by section 101 of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), described in subsection 
(b) is not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.
    (b) Description.--The portion of the project referred to in 
subsection (a) is the portion of the 35-foot turning basin beginning at 
a point with coordinates N225,008.38, E395,464.26, thence running north 
43 degrees 49 minutes 53.4 seconds east 362.001 feet to a point 
N225,269.52, E395,714.96, thence running south 71 degrees 27 minutes 
33.0 seconds east 1,309.201 feet to a point N224,853.22, E396,956.21, 
thence running north 84 degrees 3 minutes 45.7 seconds west 1,499.997 
feet to the point of origin.
                                 <all>
```
#### First National Bank of Albia *et al.,*Appellees, v. City Council of Albia, Appellant.

Appeal: notice: record: jurisdiction.

*Appeal from, Monroe District Court.*— Hon. H. C. Traverse, Judge.

Monday, May 23, 1892.

*T. B. Perry,*for appellant.

*J. C. Mabry*and *MeNett $ Tisdale,*for appellees.

Kinne, J.

This cause is submitted on an abstract which does not show that an appeal was taken. We assume, where a case is submitted upon an abstract, that it shows the entire record, so far as it is material. The abstract should affirmatively show that an appeal has been taken. Code, section 3178; rule of court 98; *Gleason v. Collett,*77 Iowa, 448; *Schooley v. Globe Insurance Co.,*76 Iowa, 78; *Domelly v. Cedar County,*75 Iowa, 536; *State v. Clossner,*84 Iowa, 401. The appeal is necessary to give this court jurisdiction, nor is it waived by the appearance of the parties to the merits of the case, without objection for the failure to take an appeal. Under such circumstances, we are required to dismiss the case. *Talbort v. Noble,*75 Iowa, 165; *Plummer v. People’s Nat. Bank,*74 Iowa, 731; *Phillips v. Follet,*69 Iowa, 39; *State v. Clossner, supra.*Dismissed.
Exhibit 99.16  CONSENT OF FRANCIS BRUNET  I consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Agnico Eagle Mines Limited for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March     , 2017 (the Annual Report) of my name and the information that I have approved of as a qualified person under the Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 in the Annual Information Form of Agnico Eagle Mines Limited dated March     , 2017 (the AIF) filed as part of the Annual Report.  I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-10 (registration no. 333-206498), Form F-3D (registration no. 333-215096) and Form S-8 (registration nos. 333-130339 and 333-152004) of the reference to my name and the above-mentioned information in the AIF.  March 27, 2017  /s/Francis BrunetFrancis BrunetCorporate Director   Mining
TS – 11KK6F, Physical and Chemical Properties Worksheet, ECOSARTM Estimates

Redacted
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

*Name and Committee Code:*                     Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (13883) (Virtual).                

*Date and Time:*                     November 19, 2024; 10:00am-4:00pm.                

*Place:*                     National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Room E 3430, Alexandria, VA 22314.                

This is a virtual meeting. Members and the public may attend virtually via Zoom.

                    Attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the AC's website at:                     *https://www.nsf.gov/​mps/​ast/​aaac.jsp*.                

                    The link for registration for Zoom is:                     *https://nsf.zoomgov.com/​webinar/​register/​WN_​ICy042ZyTtylN3bhME58MQ*.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Open.                

*Contact Person:*                     Dr. Daniel Fabrycky, Program Director, Division of Astronomical Sciences, Suite W 9176, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: 703-292-8490.                

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     To provide advice and recommendations to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on issues within the field of astronomy and astrophysics that are of mutual interest and concern to the agencies. To prepare the annual report.                

*Agenda:*                     To provide updates on Agency activities and to discuss the Committee's draft annual report due 15 March 2025.                

Dated: October 31, 2024.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2024-25737 Filed 11-5-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41316 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARLON MANDELLE JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:97-CR-35-2

- - - - - - - - - - August 14, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marlon Mandelle Jones argues on direct appeal from his guilty plea conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base that he was denied effective assistance of court-appointed and retained counsel at sentencing. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to fairly evaluate Jones’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). Therefore, we decline to address Jones’s claims without prejudiceNo. 97-41316 -2- to his right to raise the issue in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Id. at 316. AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00502-CV

Robert S. Howell, D.C. and First Rio Valley Medical, P.A., Appellants

v.

Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission; Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C.;

Texas Mutual Insurance Company; Continental Casualty Company;

Brownsville I.S.D.; Edwards Risk Management d/b/a Edwards

Claims Administration; State Office of Risk Management;

Safeco Insurance Company; and American Risk

Fund Insurance Company, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN200967, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction. Final judgment has been

rendered in the underlying cause, and an appeal taken from that judgment in Howell v. Texas

Workers’CompensationCommission, appellate cause number 03-03-00381-CV. Appellees request

by motion that we dismiss this appeal as moot. 

By separate motion, appellees move for damages and sanctionsfor appellants’ filing

of an allegedly frivolous petition for emergency writ of prohibition. We overrule that motion.
2

We dismiss this appeal as moot.

 

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Kidd and Patterson

Dismissed as Moot

Filed: August 29, 2003