alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/5/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
USMAN SHEHU SULE,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 95-1494

v. D. Colorado B. R. STORY, IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondents - Appellees. (D.C. No. 95-K-2351)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and LOGAN , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 Sule disputes one of the recited facts -- that he entered the country in 1990.

However, this disputed fact is irrelevant to the jurisdictional determination. - 2 - Usman Shehu Sule filed this in forma pauperis pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He seeks release from custody, a writ of mandamus, and preliminary injunction against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 1361. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Sule was not in INS custody. Sule appeals, contending that the district court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction, and in failing to address the due process and equal protection issues he raised. We affirm. The facts 1 and applicable law are fully set forth in the Recommendation of the magistrate judge which the district court adopted. R. Vol. I, Tab 10. Having conducted a de novo review of the legal conclusions, we affirm the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction for substantially the same reasons. Additionally, as the magistrate judge noted, no final order of deportation has issued, nor has any hearing thereon been scheduled. Accordingly, any alleged violation of constitutional due process and equal protection is both premature and speculative. See McDonald v. New Mexico Parole Bd. , 955 F.2d 631, 633-35 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 504 U.S. 920 (1992). AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge- 3 -
DAVID EUGENE ZIPPERER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4989

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

David Eugene Zipperer, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits. 

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07655]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0172]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of 
Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food 
Establishments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled, ``Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling 
of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food 
Establishments,'' has been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, 
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993-0002, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f1f1d0e1c3b2e29290f292b2e6127273c61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5b5b7a4b691848383a5838184cb8d8d96cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 5, 2015, the Agency submitted a 
proposed collection of information entitled ``Food Labeling; Nutrition 
Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food 
Establishments'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information 
collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0783. The approval 
expires on March 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this 
information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07655 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Inc.

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(File Nos.  333-91601,  333-85979,  333-18411,  333-44710 and 333-98839) on Form
10-KSB of Brilliant  Digital  Entertainment,  Inc. (the "Company") of our report
dated  February 27, 2004,  relating to the  consolidated  financial  statements,
which  appear  in  the  annual  report  on  Form  10-KSB  of  Brilliant  Digital
Entertainment,  Inc. Our report contains an explanatory  paragraph regarding the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern.


/s/   BDO Seidman, LLP

Los Angeles, CA
March 26, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07674]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


Order of Suspension of Trading; Earth Dragon Resources, Inc.

March 31, 2015.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Earth Dragon Resources, Inc. (``Earth Dragon'') because it has not 
filed a periodic report since it filed its Form 10-Q for the period 
ending August 31, 2011, filed on October 3, 2012. Earth Dragon's common 
stock (ticker ``EARH'') is quoted on OTC Link (previously ``Pink 
Sheets'') operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of Earth Dragon.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of 
Earth Dragon is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 
31, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 14, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07674 Filed 3-31-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE CODE 8011-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                           EXHIBIT 21.1


                                  SUBSIDIARIES

1. CCI Group, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri.

2. POSNET Computers, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of California.

3. Javelin Systems (Europe) Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of
England.

4. Javelin Systems International Pte Ltd., a corporation organized under the
laws of Singapore.

5. Aspact IT Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd., a corporation organized under the
laws of Singapore, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Javelin Systems
International Pte Ltd.

6. Javelin Systems Australia Pty Limited, a corporation organized under the laws
of Australia.

7. RGB/Trinet Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of England.

8. Jade Communications Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of
England.

9. Dynamic Technologies, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of
Pennsylvania.

10. SB Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania.

11. Restaurant Consulting Services, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware.

12. Aspeon Solutions, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.

13. Monument Software Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of
Massachusetts.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 05, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 05, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0080. BOBBY ADKINS v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

15T22409
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 24-6


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints Derek R. McClain, William P. Leiser and J. Christopher
Kirk and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power
of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead,
to sign on his behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be,
of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000,
and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact,
and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done
in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might
or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said
attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause
to be done by virtue hereof.


                                        /s/ Robert E. Sulentic
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Robert E. Sulentic
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Rajesh Raniga, Chief Financial Officer of EYI Industries, Inc.
(the "Registrant"),certify that;

(1)	I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of EYI
Industries, Inc.;

(2)	Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

(3)	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

(4)	The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
Registrant and have:

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

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during the
Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)	The Registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial
reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

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:  	May 20, 2005



	/s/ Rajesh Raniga
By: 	Rajesh Raniga
Title:	Chief Financial Officer
#### Pratt v. Best Builders of Pennsylvania Inc.

*150
      *David Patten,*for plaintiff.

*Ronald Nagle,*for defendant.

September 23, 1977

O’DONNELL, *J.,*

Here a defendant-builder seeks to strike off a discontinuance of an action filed by plaintiff-homeowner to recover contract damages claimed to arise out of defective construction of their residence.

Plaintiffs filed this action claiming damages within the then existing $2,000 arbitration limit and won an award. Defendant appealed that award, and while the appeal was pending, plaintiff obtained leave of court to amend increasing his claim to $7,216.08, an amount beyond that $2,000 arbitration limit, that leave of court, however, being conditioned upon the payment of defendant’s costs.

Instead of doing this, plaintiff merely filed a second action for the same claim, which upon defendant’s preliminary objections was struck off because of the pendency of the first action.

Plaintiff then discontinued the first action, “without prejudice” and filed a third action. Defendant now petitions to strike off that discontinuance, urging this court to find the voluntary discontinuance “highly prejudicial” to defendant. Defendant’s petition does not say how the discontinuance is “highly prejudicial,” nor does defend*151ant plead “unreasonable inconvenience, vexation, harassment, expense . . Pa. R.C.P. 229(c).

To strike off the discontinuance, however, would be far more prejudicial to plaintiff, as it would have the effect of putting him out of court altogether, than the discontinuance, left to stand, is prejudicial to defendant, for defendant is adequately protected by Pa. R.C.P. 231, which requires that plaintiff pay the costs of the first action. The payment of those costs will place the parties in statu quo ante.

ORDER

And now, September 23, 1977, the rule entered by this court on May 10, 1973, to show cause why the discontinuance should not be stricken off is discharged.
#### Jones vs. Dow and others.

Under section 29, chapter 140, B. S. 1858, a court commissioner could, by order, stay proceedings after judgment in a foreclosure suit, the trial having been by the court alone, so that, technically speaking, there had been no verdict.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Walworth*County.

The case is stated by the court.

*Edson Kellogg*and'dS *Walceley,*for appellant.

*Newton S. Murphy,*for respondent.

*By the*Court,

Paine, J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside a sale on a mortgage foreclosure.

One of the grounds relied on in support of the motion, was, that an order had been made by a court commissioner staying the proceedings, which was duly served but disregarded. Section 29, chap. 140, R. S., 1858, prohibits commissioners from making orders to stay proceedings after verdict. But this, being an equity case, was tried by the court, so that there was, technically speaking, no verdict. Hence it is claimed that the commissioner had power to make the order in this case. This construction is sustained by the case of *Otis vs. Spencer,*8 Howard Pr. R., 171, and no case was cited giving the word verdict the enlarged signification contended for by the respondent. I can see no reason why a distinction should be made in this respect between cases tried before a judge who files his finding and those tried before a jury who render a verdict. If I were making the law, I should make no distinction But the legislature having confined the provision to cases in which there had been a verdict, it is sufficient to say the law is so written. We must hold that the commissioner had power to make the order, and though he erred in making it, for the reason given, that does not entitle the plaintiff or the officer to disregard it. It is a sufficient reason for setting aside a sale, that it was made 'in defiance of a valid order staying proceedings. *Campbell vs. Smith,*9 Wis., 305.

The sale should have been set aside, and the order appealed from is reversed, with costs.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2832 

To prohibit the National Flood Insurance Program from providing flood 

insurance subsidies for single-family residences that are valued at more 

than $1,000,000, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 

Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following bill; 

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

A BILL 

To prohibit the National Flood Insurance Program from 

providing flood insurance subsidies for single-family residences that are valued at more than $1,000,000, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No NFIP Subsidies 

5 for Millionaires Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2832 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FLOOD INSURANCE SUBSIDIES 

2 FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES VALUED AT 

3 OVER $1,000,000. 

4 Section 1307 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 

5 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as sub7 section (i); and 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(h) PROHIBITION ON SUBSIDIES FOR SINGLE-FAM11 ILY HOMES VALUED AT OVER $1,000,000.—The pre12 mium rate for flood insurance under this title for a prop13 erty consisting of 1 residence with an assessed value, at 

14 the time of acquiring or renewing the flood insurance pol15 icy, of more than $1,000,000— 

16 ‘‘(1) shall be based on sound actuarial prin17 ciples; and 

18 ‘‘(2) shall not be subject to any cap on the in19 crease in the premium rate for flood insurance.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: JIMMY LEE SWEED,

 Relator.

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-17-00051-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The court has considered this cause on the Relator=s petition for writ of mandamus against 

the Honorable Gonzalo Garcia, Judge of the 210th District Court of El Paso, Texas, and concludes 

that Relator=s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the petition for 

writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OFMARCH, 2017.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Acrongenomics, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Eleftherios Georgakopoulos, Chief Executive Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  November 14, 2005

By:  /s/ Eleftherios Georgakopoulos

Name:  Eleftherios Georgakopoulos

Title:    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 2, 2013

NO. 03-11-00228-CV

Appellants, Edmond L. Bisland III and Rhonda T. Bisland// Cross-Appellant, Financial 

Indemnity Company, or properly Unitrin County Mutual Insurance Company f/k/a 

Charter County Mutual Insurance Company

v.

Appellee, Financial Indemnity Company, or properly Unitrin County Mutual Insurance 

Company f/k/a Charter County Mutual Insurance Company// Cross-Appellees,

Edmond L. Bisland III and Rhonda T. Bisland

APPEAL FROM 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON AND HENSON

REVERSED AND RENDERED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

JUSTICE HENSON NOT PARTICIPATING

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the trial court’s 

judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the judgment of the 

trial court is reversed, and judgment is rendered in favor of the appellee/cross-appellant in 

accordance with the jury’s verdict. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellants/cross-appellees

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision 

be certified below for observance.
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: Project No.: 0317.02.005.520 Page 1 of 1 Project Name: 2015 Annual Review – Preliminary Category Review OCPSF (PSC 414) 

### CBI? Yes No TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Incoming Outgoing Date: 12/22/2014 Time: 11:30 am pm

Company Name: Viscofan USA (Danville, IL) ERG Staff Name: Elizabeth Gentile

Contact Name: Jack Webster Contact Phone Number: (217) 444-8312 General Subject: 2013 TRI Carbon Disulfide Releases from Viscofan USA TRI ID: 61832TPKNC915NM



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Based on a review of Viscofan USA (in Danville, IL ) on EPA’s Envirofacts website, I identified Mr. Zan Whitsitt as the TRIS contact for th e facility. I called Mr. Whitsitt on De cember 22, 2014 to discuss the carbon disulfide indirect releases reporte d by the facility in the 2013 TRI; however, the line was disconnected. I identified Doug Cunningham as the second TRIS cont act. I call Mr. Cunningham on December 22, 2014 and January 6, 2015; however, was unable to leave a message. I identified Jack Webster as another contact from Envirofacts.

I called and left a message for Mr. We bster on January 6, 2015 at 11:30 AM.

I called and left a message for Mr. We bster on January 9, 2015 at 11:00 AM.

I called and left a message for Mr. Webster on January 14, 2015 at 9:35 AM.

Mr. Bill Swietlik, US EPA, reached out to Mr. Webs ter. Mr. Webster did not respond to the requests.