alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1268
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BHUPENDRA PATEL, Former Owner of Y & J Food Market, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-102-3-C) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bhupendra Patel, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order granting a default judgment against Appellant. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Patel , No. CA-96-102-3-C (W.D. Va. Feb. 6, 1997). 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Richard V. Secord, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30,
2006 of Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, auditors and the registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies 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 controls.


Date: September 27, 2006


/s/ Richard V. Secord
-----------------------
Richard V. Secord
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2015353EN.01000101.xml

| 24.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 353/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 353/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7669 — Lion Capital/Aryzta/Picard Groupe)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 353/01)

On 7 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7669. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7669. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# CA2014134EN.01000101.xml

| 3.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 134/1

---

Corrigendum to Notice of open competition

EPSO/AD/278/14 — ADMINISTRATORS (AD 7)

in the following fields:

| 1. | DIGITAL FORENSICS |
| --- | --- |

1.

DIGITAL FORENSICS

| 2. | OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |
| --- | --- |

2.

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 88 A of 27 March 2014
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 88 A of 27 March 2014

2014/C 134 A/01

On page 7, Section VIII, point 1:

On page 7, Section VIII, point 1:

for:

for:

‘Deadline (including validation): 29 April 2014 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time.’,

Deadline (including validation): 29 April 2014 at 12.00 (midday)

read:

read:

‘Deadline (including validation): 6 May 2014 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time.’.

Deadline (including validation): 6 May 2014 at 12.00 (midday)

---
# C_2016286EN.01000101.xml

| 6.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 August 2016

(2016/C 286/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1156 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,73 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4373 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84810 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5043 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0852 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4022 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,62 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2841 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4622 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3471 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4567 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4529 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6521 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5473 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4953 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 237,73 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,2536 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4110 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4843 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 617,71 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4927 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,300 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,7967 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,848 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5501 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,0282 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,4919 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1156

JPY

Japanese yen

112,73

DKK

Danish krone

7,4373

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84810

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5043

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0852

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4022

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,62

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2841

RON

Romanian leu

4,4622

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3471

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4567

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4529

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6521

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5473

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4953

KRW

South Korean won

1 237,73

ZAR

South African rand

15,2536

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4110

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4843

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 617,71

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4927

PHP

Philippine peso

52,300

RUB

Russian rouble

72,7967

THB

Thai baht

38,848

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5501

MXN

Mexican peso

21,0282

INR

Indian rupee

74,4919

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                 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 Annual Report of Arc Communications Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned principal financial officer of the Company hereby certifies,
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 as of
and for the periods covered in the Report.

/s/ Frank Elenio
-------------------------------
    Frank Elenio
    Chief Financial Officer
    Arc Communications Inc.

May 28, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part
of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ARC Communications Inc. and will be retained by ARC Communications
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7105

JESSIE FREDERICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN MAGILL, Director, S.C.D.M.H., in his individual and 

official capacity; HOLLY SCATURO, Director - S.V.P.T.P, in 

her individual and official capacity; KIMBERLY POHOLCHUK, 

Program Coor. S.V.P.T.P., in her individual and official 

capacity; WARDEN STEVENSON, Warden, BRCI, in his individual 

and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (0:15-cv-03399-HMH)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie Frederick, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, 

David Allan DeMasters, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South 

Carolina; Eugene Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Jessie Frederick seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district 

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended 

that relief be denied and advised Frederick that the failure to 

file timely objections to this recommendation could waive 

appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. 

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

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

review by failing to file specific objections after receiving 

proper notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Motion Granted and Order filed December 2, 2016. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00963-CV

____________

IN RE ALLSTATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 87242-CV

ORDER

On November 30, 2016, relator Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company 

filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Relator asks this court to order 

the Honorable Patrick Sebesta, Judge of the 239th District Court, in Brazoria 

County, Texas, to vacate the portion his order dated November 23, 2016, denying 

the motion to abate the proceedings on the extra-contractual claims entered in trial 
court number 87242-CV, styled Alexa St. Julian v. Allstate County Mutual Insurance 

Company, and grant the motion to abate those proceedings.

Relator has also filed a motion for temporary stay of the proceedings below.

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On November 30, 2016, relator asked this court 

to stay discovery of the extra-contractual claims in the trial court, pending a decision 

on the petition for writ of mandamus.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s request 

for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless 

immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and 

issue the following order:

We ORDER all discovery related to the extra-contractual claims in trial court 

cause number 87242-CV, Alexa St. Julian v. Allstate County Mutual Insurance 

Company, STAYED until a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ 

of mandamus, or until further order of this court.

In addition, the court requests the real party-in-interest to file a response to 

the petition for writ of mandamus on or before December 16, 2016. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2717 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure that revenues collected 

from passengers as aviation security fees are used to help finance the 

costs of aviation security screening by repealing a requirement that 

a portion of such fees be credited as offsetting receipts and deposited 

in the general fund of the Treasury. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure that revenues collected from passengers as aviation security fees 

are used to help finance the costs of aviation security 

screening by repealing a requirement that a portion of 

such fees be credited as offsetting receipts and deposited 

in the general fund of the Treasury. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2717 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Funding for Aviation 

3 Screeners and Threat Elimination Restoration Act’’ or the 

4 ‘‘FASTER Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT REGARDING CREDITING 

6 AND DEPOSIT OF A PORTION OF AVIATION 

7 SECURITY FEES. 

8 (a) REPEAL.—Section 44940 of title 49, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3); 

11 (2) in subsection (f)— 

12 (A) by striking the heading and inserting 

13 ‘‘DEPOSIT AND AVAILABILITY OF FEE.—’’; 

14 (B) by striking paragraph (1); 

15 (C) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and 

16 (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and 

17 (D) by amending paragraph (1), as so re18 designated, to read as follows: 

19 ‘‘(1) shall be deposited into a separate account 

20 in the Treasury, which shall be available to the Ad21 ministrator for expenditure only to pay the costs of 

22 activities and services for which the fee is imposed; 

23 and’’; and 

24 (3) by striking subsection (i). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2717 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (d)(4) 

2 of such section is amended by striking ‘‘, other than sub3 section (i),’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (33-96242, 333-4658 and 33-90624) and on Form S-3
(333-24691) of our report dated September 19, 1997 relating to the financial
statements of DeepTech International Inc. for the year ended June 30, 1997
appearing on page F-2 of this Form 10-K.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP



Houston, Texas
September 26, 1997
#### Falvey vs. O’Brien.

On dismissing an appeal from a justice of the peace by the plaintiif in an action for the recovery of personal property, it was error for the circuit court to render a judgment against the plaintiff; and where the judgment of the justice was for nominal damages and costs in favor of the defendant, with an order that the constable deliver the property to him, and that of the circuit court, on dismissing the appeal, was for a return of the property or its value, &c., the error was material, and the latter judgment must be reversed.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Kenosha*County.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

*P. B. Ladd,*for appellant.

*Webster*& *Schoff,*for respondent.

*By the Court,*

Cole, J.

This was an action to recover possession of a colt, commenced before a justice of the peace. The justice found for the defendant, that the value of .the colt was sixty dollars, and assessed the damages for the seizure and detention of the property at six cents. He likewise made an order that the constable deliver the colt to the defendant, and that the defendant recover his costs in the action. The plaintiff took an appeal to the circuit court. After two regular terms of court had elapsed, the circuit court dismissed the appeal in conformity to section 216, chap. 120, R. S., and proceeded to give judgment that *Falvey*redeliver the colt to the defendant, or pay the sum of sixty dollars, the value thereof as found by the justice, with the defendant’s damages for the detention, and costs of suit.

There can be no doubt that it was error for the circuit court to proceed and give a judgment in the cause after dismissing the appeal. *Haner vs. Polk,*6 Wis., 350. The appeal being dismissed, the cause was, of course, out of court. But notwithstanding the court had lost jurisdiction of the case by dismissing it, still a judgment was rendered that *Falvey*redeliver the property to the defendant or pay its value, a condition not *189made in the judgment of the justice. This is a material error, of which the appellant has a right to complain.

So much of the judgment of the circuit court, therefore, as relates to the redelivery of the property or payment of its value by the appellant, must be reversed.

. That portion dismissing the appeal is affirmed.
# C_2015353EN.01000201.xml

| 24.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 353/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 353/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 October 2015

(2015/C 353/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1084 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,80 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4597 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71955 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4079 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0793 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2525 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,074 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,95 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2529 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4269 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,1868 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5250 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4483 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5901 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6306 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5408 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 249,33 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,9007 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0390 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6243 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 057,70 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6862 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,565 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,5882 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,254 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3168 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,2027 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,8562 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1084

JPY

Japanese yen

133,80

DKK

Danish krone

7,4597

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71955

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4079

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0793

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2525

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,074

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,95

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2529

RON

Romanian leu

4,4269

TRY

Turkish lira

3,1868

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5250

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4483

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5901

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6306

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5408

KRW

South Korean won

1 249,33

ZAR

South African rand

14,9007

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0390

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6243

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 057,70

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6862

PHP

Philippine peso

51,565

RUB

Russian rouble

68,5882

THB

Thai baht

39,254

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3168

MXN

Mexican peso

18,2027

INR

Indian rupee

71,8562

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Motion Granted; Continuing Abatement Order filed November 29, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00546-CV

____________

SHANNON CURTIS, Appellant

V.

CHAD BAKER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 164th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-47231

CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER

On November 3, 2016, this court entered an order abating this appeal in order 

to allow appellant to secure a free copy of the record below as well as to resolve any 

finality issues in the trial court that may render this appeal premature. The order 

stated the appeal would be reinstated on January 3, 2017.

On November 22, 2016, appellant filed a motion to extend the abatement 

period by 45 days because the trial court’s first available hearing date is January 13, 
2

2017. Appellant has secured and set a hearing on that date. The motion is granted. 

Accordingly, we issue the following order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket until February 17, 2017. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s 

active docket at that time. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to 

reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its 

own motion.

PER CURIAM