alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robbie ROBERTS, Respondent v. Melvin L. ROBERTS, Petitioner.

(347 S. E. (2d) 506)

Supreme Court

Aug. 20, 1986.

ORDER

Ness, Chief Justice:

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from a Court of Appeals opinion which remanded his appeal to the family court after he filed a bankruptcy petition pursuant to the federal bankruptcy laws. We grant certiorari on Question I raised in the petition dealing with the appropriateness of remanding the case to the family court in light of the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy laws, and dispense with further briefing. The case shall be recalled from the family court and the appeal shall be held in abeyance on this Court’s docket until the federal bankruptcy proceedings involving Petitioner are concluded. Petitioner must notify this *546Court and all parties in writing within ten (10) days after a judgment is entered in the bankruptcy proceeding.

In light of our disposition of Question I, this Court need not reach Question II raised by the petition and, therefore, certiorari is denied on that question. Relevant to that question, however, Petitioner seeks permission to file supplemental authority. Respondent has filed a substantive reply to the authority advanced by petitioner. Permission to file this authority is granted and the documents submitted by the parties will be made a part of the briefs on appeal.

It is so ordered.

Gregory, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
       (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    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
 (d)
    
    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 (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; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonable 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 14, 2010
    /s/ Brendan J. McGillBrendan J. McGillExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
TradeOn Inc.: Exhibit 10.2 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com











Exhibit 10.2 


Summary of Mortgage Contract of Maximum Amount 


Mortgage Contract of Maximum Amount (the “Contract”) Entered into by and between Jiangsu Best Appliance Co., Ltd. (the “Mortgager”) and Jiangsu Wujin Rural Commercial Bank (the “Creditor”)
on December 10, 2008 


Main contents: 

	
Contract number: 1140822008930016;

	
In order to guarantee the indebtedness of Jiangsu Best Appliance Co., Ltd. (the “Obligor”) towards the Creditor under the Loan Contract of Maximum Amount (reference no.: 1140822008150016) the Mortgager agrees to mortgage its property to
the Creditor.

	
Maximum amount of the loan principle under the mortgage: RMB 21 million from December 10, 2008 to December 9, 2011.

	
Scope of Guaranty: The guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, and other fees which is incurred to the Creditor in realizing its creditor’s right, including but not
limited to litigation cost, lawyer’s fees, etc..

	
Collaterals: The Mortgager agrees to mortgage its assets with a certified value of RMB 30,513,100 to the Creditor.

	
Term of guarantee: 2 years since the expiration of statute of limitation for the secured creditor’s right.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 3, 2013

h0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

147224-5

CITY OF RIVERVIEW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

CITY OF RIVER ROUGE,

Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147224-5

COA: 301549 & 302903

Ingham CC: 09-000712-CZ

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7324

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EMANUEL BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (2:90-cr-00240; 1:07-cv-00195-NCT)

Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 27, 2008

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emanuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Emanuel Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge treating his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, although we grant Brown’s motion to amend his informal

brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

Additionally, we construe Brown’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340
- 3 -

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Brown’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

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 the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 19, 2024. 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, September 19, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A25I0029. DARLENE BEARDEN et al v. RIVER BEARDEN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT AND LEGAL GUARDIAN STEPHANIE BEARDEN, INDIVIDUALLY.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 23STCV130
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 20**  **1 3** 

**- NM** 
**- 034** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 25, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, Inc. (“NCOIC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Harry Raduege (individual member), Arlington, VA; Tata Power SED, Andheri, Mumbai, INDIA; and Vikram Chauhan (individual member), Great Falls, VA, have been added as parties to this venture.                

In addition, NJVC, LLC, Vienna, VA, Saab AB, Ostersund, SWEDEN; and The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NCOIC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 19, 2004, NCOIC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5486).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 27, 2015. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10716).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2015-09322 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22551-22552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Opendaylight Project, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 25, 2015 pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), OpenDaylight Project, Inc. 
(``OpenDaylight'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, IIX Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Spirent Communications Inc., 
Sunnyvale, CA; and CA Inc., Portsmouth, NH, have been added as parties 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and OpenDaylight intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 23, 2013, OpenDaylight filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39326).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 24, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal

[[Page 22552]]

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 6, 2015 (80 FR 
6768).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-09317 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                             PYRAMID BREWERIES INC.

                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                  -----------------------
                                            1996           1995            1994
                                            ----           ----            ----
                                                       (PRO FORMA)     (PRO FORMA)
<S>                                     <C>             <C>             <C>
Income Before Income Taxes..........    $3,742,465      $5,786,121      $3,385,089
Plus Interest Expense...............           -           272,501          59,241
                                        ----------      ----------      ----------
Income Before Income Taxes..........     3,742,465      6,058,622(1)    3,444,330(1)
Income Tax Provision................     1,050,817      2,294,892(1)    1,202,071(1)
                                        ----------      ----------      ----------
Net Income for EPS Calculation......    $2,691,648      $3,763,730      $2,242,259
                                        ==========      ==========      ==========

Weighted average common shares
  outstanding.......................     8,200,224       6,298,630       6,200,000

Pro Forma shares issued to retire
  debt and repay stockholder
  notes.............................           -           524,349(2)      446,409(2)
                                        ----------      ----------      ----------
Shares Outstanding..................     8,204,656       6,882,979       6,646,409
                                        ==========      ==========      ==========
Earnings per Share..................    $      .33      $     0.55      $     0.34
                                        ==========      ==========      ==========
</TABLE>

____________________

(1) Pro forma net income represents the Company's reported income before income
    taxes, plus interest expense, less a pro forma income tax provision that
    would have been applicable had the Company been taxed as a C corporation.
    The Company had elected to be treated as an S corporation from January 1,
    1993 until prior to the closing date of the Offering and, as a result, has
    not been subject to federal and certain state income taxes.

(2) Pro forma shares issued to retire debt and repay stockholder notes
    represents the number of shares of Common Stock which would be required to
    be sold to repay the $6.0 million notes issued by the Company to its
    stockholders in payment of a dividend representing the distribution of
    retained S corporation earnings and retire outstanding debt.
CLD

- 184 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 17

- 3755

___________ PAUL J. BISHOP , Appellant

v. US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ; THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3

- 17

- cv
- 03372 ) District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pu rsuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 19, 2018 Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, Jr., and FUENTES , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 6, 2018 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 Pro se appellant Paul J. Bishop appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint sua sponte on the grounds that it was frivolous and failed to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i) and (ii)

. We will dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it has no arguable basis in law or fact

. I. Because we write primarily for the parties, who are already familiar with this case, we include only those facts necessary to reach our conclusion.
I n 2015 , Bishop filed a T itle VII complaint against the United States Department of Agriculture. The District Court granted a motion to dismiss, and Bishop appealed.
This Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. See Bishop v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric. , ___ F. App’x ___, 20 18 WL 798474 (3d Cir. Feb. 9, 2018, No. 17

- 2566 ) (per curiam)

. In 2017, Bishop filed a nearly identical complaint in the District Court. The
District Court dismissed the complaint sua sponte as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim , pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)

. This appeal foll o wed

. II. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Allah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires us to dismiss an appeal that lacks an arguable basis i n law or fact. See Azubuko v. Royal , 443 F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (citing Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) )

.3 We agree with the District Court’s dismissal of the suit on the basis that it repeats
the exact same claims the Dis trict Court and this Court have previously rejected. S ee Bishop , 2018 WL 798474 at *2. Bishop provided no new argument in the District Court why his claims had merit, and has not made any such argument on appeal. Thus, Bishop ’s appeal lacks arguable mer it , and we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)

.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4184 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 

qualified tuition deduction. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. POMEROY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the qualified tuition deduction. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED TUITION AND RE4 LATED EXPENSES MADE PERMANENT. 

5 (a) REPEAL OF TERMINATION.—Section 222 of the 

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

7 subsection (e). 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4184 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS