alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA VI D MAT L E AN , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. R O N A L D P . P I E R I N I ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16558 D. C . No . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 0 6 3 - L R HV PC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da L a rryR . H i c ks , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: H A W K IN S , S IL V E R M A N , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D a vi d M at l e a n appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a r i s i ng outof atr a f f i c s t op. W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . L uc hte l v . H age m ann , 6 2 3 F .3 d9 7 5 , 9 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( s u m m a ryju d g m e n t) ; Ch o l la R ea d y Mi x. , In c. v. C i vish , 382 F . 3d 969,



# FI LED OC T 07 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 16558 2 9 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity ) . W e a f f irm . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d M a t l e a n’ s c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe S t a t e of N e v a d au n d e rth e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t. Se e O ’ C onnorv . N e v ada , 686 F . 2d 749, 7 5 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t b a r s f e d e r a l s u it a g a in s t a st at e w i tho uti t s c on se nt ). Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yg r a n t e ds u mmaryj u d g me n to n M a t l e a n ’ s c l a i ms a g a in s t th e r e m a in in g d e f e n d a n ts b e c au s e M a tle a n f a ile dto r a is e ag e n u in e d is p u te of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rde f

e nda nt s vi ol a t e d hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s by a lle g e d lyf

a ilin g to o b ta in c e rta in b o n d s r e q u ir e db yN e v a d alaw . See V i l legas v. C i t yof G i lr oy , 48 4 F . 3d 11 36 , 11 39 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( un der § 19 83 , the pl ai nt i ff m u s t s h o w th a t h e h a s b e e n d e p r iv e do f ar ig h t s e c u r e db yth e C o n s titu tio n ) ; se e al s o N e v. R e v. S t a t . § 282. 163 ( “ A bl a nke tf i de l i tybond orbl a nke tpos i t i on bond m a yb e f u rn is h e da t c o u n tye x p e n s e f o ra ll e le c te do f

f ic e r s e x c e p t th e c o u n ty tr e a s u r e r .” ) . M at l ean’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION





I, Blake M. Edwards, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Grayson Bankshares, 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 officer 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 (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



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee 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 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:  November 12, 2004

/s/ Blake M. Edwards

Blake M. Edwards

Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: March 13, 2009
    /s/ Robert I. ChenRobert I. ChenPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Worksheet

BT Summary

MPAs

Quantitative Nonuse Summary Tables for BA.xlsx

Author: Abt Associates Inc.

Created: 05/02/14

Purpose: To summarize the results of the nonuse benefits transfer from the Nonuse Benefit Transfer SAS 

Model and from the analysis of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The tables are presented in Chapter 8 of th

Benefits Analysis for the final rule.
Description

Summarizes changes in winter flounder abundance and benefits estimates from 

Nonuse Benefit Transfer SAS Model by region for the final rule and other options 

considered. This table is presented in Chapter 8 of the Benefits Analysis for the final 

rule.

Summarizes number of facilities with improved technology within MPAs by region for 

the final rle and other options considered. This table is presented in Chapter 8 of the 

Benefits Analysis for the final rule.

use Summary Tables for BA.xlsx

ociates Inc.

mmarize the results of the nonuse benefits transfer from the Nonuse Benefit Transfer SAS 

 the analysis of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The tables are presented in Chapter 8 of the 

s for the final rule.
Step Proposal 

Option 4 Final Rule Proposal Option 2 Baseline

Reduction in Northeast IM&E (millions of A1E) 0.03 0.08 4.78 6.23

Percentage increase in age-1 fish in Northeast 

waters relative to age-1 stock at MSY 0.02% 0.07% 4.18% 5.44%

Household WTP per Household (2011$) $0.02 $0.05 $3.01 $3.92

Annual WTP (millions of 2011$) $0.09 $0.28 $16.35 $21.29

Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions of $0.06 $0.21 $10.43 $20.21

Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions of 

2011$) $0.05 $0.17 $7.61 $19.77

Annual WTP (millions of 2011$) $0.34 $1.09 $63.80 $83.10

Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions of 

2011$) $0.25 $0.81 $40.70 $78.89

Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions of 

2011$) $0.20 $0.65 $29.69 $77.17

Annual WTP (millions of 2011$) $0.42 $1.37 $80.14 $104.39

Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions of 

2011$) $0.31 $1.01 $51.13 $99.10

Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions of 

2011$) $0.25 $0.82 $37.30 $96.95

North Atlantica

Mid-Atlanticb

a

 Based on 5.41 million households.

b

 Based on 21.11 million households.

Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report

Total Northeast (North Atlantic plus Mid-Atlantic)
IM E IM E IM E

Number of 

Facilities

Affected 

Waterbodies

With Tech 

Datab

California 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 1

North Atlantic 2 0 2 0 2 2 7 6 6

Mid-Atlantic 8 0 8 0 8 6 24 15 12

South Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1

Gulf of Mexico 2 0 2 0 3 3 3 3 3

Great Lakes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inland 2 0 2 0 2 2 6 5 2

Total 15 0 15 0 16 14 44 32 25

a

 IM is impingement mortality and E is entrainment.

b

 EPA does not have adequate data for all facilities to estimate current compliance with the final rule. 

Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report 

Baseline

Final Rule

Proposal 

Option 2

Number of Facilities with Improved

Technologies by Optiona,b

Region Proposal 

Option 4
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3223

___________________________ Bobby Earl Jefferson, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Tom Roy; Chris Pawelk; Roy Witte; John R. King; Bruce Reiser; Jeff Lonsky; Steven Hammer; Carol Krippner; Reena Solheid; Alice Remillard; Anthony

Forchas; Arthur Dana Dickson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: August 4, 2020 Filed: August 14, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Minnesota inmate Bobby Jefferson appeals the

district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments on appeal, we conclude the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. See Odom v. Kaizer , 864 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment); see also King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr. , 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Johnson v. Jones , 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now deceased. -2-
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      (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 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.
  /s/ Robert I. ChenRobert I. Chen President,Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
RLI INSURANCE GROUP, as Assignee, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. NORCOLD CORPORATION, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0041

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
John S. TURAN and Mercedes Turan, Appellants, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Rainbow Springs Property Owners Association, Inc., Progressive Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Donna Vezina, et al., Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-215

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018

Mark P. Stopa, of Stopa Law Firm, LLC, Tampa; Latasha Scott, of Lord Scott, PLLC, of Tampa, for Appellants.

Charles P. Gufford, of McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, Orlando, for Appellee, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC.

No Appearance for other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

John and Mercedes Turan appeal from a final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, following the entry of a judicial default. We reverse.

After being served with Nationstar's amended complaint, the Turans, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss. After considering Nationstar's response, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, directing the Turans to "file an answer to the complaint within 10 days of the date of this order the failure of which may result in a judicial default being entered without further notice or hearing." When the Turans failed to timely file their answer, the trial court entered a judicial default without a motion from Nationstar or notice to the Turans. Less than a week later, they filed their answer and affirmative defenses. After the trial court denied their motion to vacate the judicial default, a final summary judgment of foreclosure was entered in favor of Nationstar from which the Turans now appeal.

As the Turans correctly argue, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b) authorizes the entry of a default by the court, but when a party has filed or served any document in the action, "that party must be served with notice of the application for default." As a result, a trial court order that provides that a judicial default will be automatically entered in the absence of a timely answer is noncompliant with the rule. *See* *Rangel v. MidFirst Bank*, 187 So.3d 289, 290-91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that trial court's "self-executing" default language is not permitted under rule 1.500(c), which requires notice of application for default); *accord* *Green Sols. Int'l, Inc. v. Gilligan*, 807 So.2d 693, 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (stating once "any *960paper" has been served, rule 1.500(b) requires proper notice of default be given to opposing party, and court enter default). The judicial default was improvidently entered, hence, the final judgment based on that default must be set aside and this matter remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco Noe VILLELA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41352 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Francisco Noe Villela-Ramirez, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Noe Villela-Ra-mirez has moved, for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Villela-Ramirez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir, 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 5th Cir. R, 47.5,4.
Paulius TELAMY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-903

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 31, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02628]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Cooperative Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee; Notice of 
Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Cooperative Studies 
Scientific Evaluation Committee will hold a meeting on March 10, 2022 
by Zoom. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. EST.
    The Committee provides expert advice on VA cooperative studies, 
multi-site clinical research activities and policies related to 
conducting and managing these efforts. The session will be open to the 
public for approximately 30 minutes at the start of the meeting for the 
discussion of administrative matters and the general status of the 
program. The remaining portion of the meeting will be closed to the 
public for the Committee's review, discussion and evaluation of 
research and development applications.
    During the closed portion of the meeting, discussions and 
recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting 
the studies, staff and consultant critiques of research proposals and 
similar documents and the medical records of patients who are study 
subjects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In addition, the premature 
disclosure of potential research activities prior to them being 
approved could frustrate the implementation of approved research 
activities. As provided by section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as 
amended, closing portions of this meeting is in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).
    The Committee will not accept oral comments from the public for the 
open portion of the meeting. Members of the public who wish to attend 
the open teleconference should call 872-701-0185, conference ID 905 990 
401#. Those who plan to attend or wish additional information should 
contact David Burnaska, Program Manager, Cooperative Studies Program 
(14RD), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20420, at 202-443-5693 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abcfcaddc2cf85c9ded9c5cad8c0caebddca85ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3d7d2c5dad79dd1c6c1ddd2c0d8d2f3c5d29dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>. Those 
wishing to submit written comments may send them to Mr. Burnaska at the 
same address and email.

    Dated: February 3, 2022.
LaTonya L. Small,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-02628 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Daniel COX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3259

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Romeo Valentin SANCHEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mike SCOTT, Lee County Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3549

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Patrice KERR, Petitioner, v. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1392

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 10, 2018

Patrice Kerr, pro se, Petitioner.

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

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied as premature. *See**Smartt v. First Union Nat'l Bank* , 771 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
Steven SHAREK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-1044

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 6, 2018

Steven Sharek, Bonifay, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the September 8, 2016 judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2016-CF-18435-A, in the Circuit Court in and for Brevard County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Larry Eugene SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4426

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Belated appeal is dismissed.
Raz OFER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. 940 MICHIGAN AVENUE, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1883

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JANUARY 3, 2018

ORDERED that petitioner's notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this petition for writ of certiorari is hereby dismissed.

LOGUE, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.