alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Steve Carl CHADWICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank BISHOP, Jr.; the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6334

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Steve Carl Chadwick, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

*298Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steve Carl Chadwick seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chadwick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT
31.2 CERTIFICATION I, Lyle Dickler, certify that: 1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SED
  International Holdings, Inc.;2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
  untrue statement of 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(s) 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
  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; andc)
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; and5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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; andb)
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: October 29, 2007 /s/ LYLE DICKLERLyle DicklerVice President of Finance(Principal Financial Officer)


---
#### The State v. Rogers.

Appeal: no notice on clerk: judgment affirmed.

*Appeal from Shelby District Court.*

Firday, March 4, 1887.

The defendant Sarah J. Rogers was indicted for the crime of resisting an officer. Verdict and judgment were rendered against her. She appeals.

No appearance for appellant.

*A. J. Balcer, Attorney-general,*for the State.

Adams, Ch. J.

This ease is submitted upon the .transcript. Notice of appeal seems to have been duly served upon the district attorney, but we are unable to discover that the notice was served upon the clerk of the court. The statute provides for such service, and without it we cannot hold that the appeal was perfected. It follows that we have no jurisdiction of the case, and the appeal must be

Dismissed.
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.

 October 18, 2013

t1015

Order 

Clerk

October 18, 2013

147778 & (15)

ZAKWAN MAHJOUB, M.D.,

Plaintiff/

Counter-Defendant/Appellant,

v SC: 147778

COA: 317489

Oakland CC: 12-130133-CK

CARDIOLOGY AND VASCULAR

ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and

KIRIT PATEL, M.D., NISHIT CHOKSI, M.D.,

MICHELE DEGREGORIO, M.D., ABDUL

HALABI, M.D., HASAN AS ABDUL HASAN,

M.D., RAJIV NAIR, M.D., RUSSEL 

STEINMAN, M.D., SHARATH CHANDRA,

M.D., DIVAKAR PAI, M.D., JAMES ALUIA,

645 BARCLAY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., and

43344 WOODWARD, L.L.C.,

Defendants,

and

JOE H. YUN, M.D., RAJENDRA PRASAD,

M.D., and ADVANCED CARDIOLOGY

ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

Third-Party Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the September 24, 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.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30990]

[[Page 76632]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 250

[Docket ID BOEM-2010-0034]
RIN 1010-AD68

Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental 
Shelf--Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer 
Continental Shelf; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 
(BOEMRE), Interior.

ACTION: Interim final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: BOEMRE published an interim final rule implementing certain 
safety measures recommended for improving the safety of oil and gas 
exploration and development on the Outer Continental Shelf. This 
document contains a correction to the final regulations published on 
October 14, 2010, which inadvertently deleted one sentence from the 
existing regulations. The correction being made is non-substantive and 
is necessary for clarification purposes only.

DATES: Effective Date: This correction is effective December 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy C. White, (703) 787-1665.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    BOEMRE published an interim final rule in the Federal Register on 
October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63346), titled ``Increased Safety Measures for 
Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf.''
    On page 63372 of the Federal Register publication of the interim 
final rule, the first sentence in Sec.  250.415(d) was inadvertently 
deleted.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

    Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, 
Incorporation by reference, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands--
mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 30, 2010.
Ned Farquhar,
Deputy Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.

0
Accordingly, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 
Enforcement is making the correcting amendment to 30 CFR Part 250 as 
follows:

PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER 
CONTINENTAL SHELF

0
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334.

0
2. In Sec.  250.415, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  250.415  What must my casing and cementing programs include?

* * * * *
    (d) In areas containing permafrost, setting depths for conductor 
and surface casing based on the anticipated depth of the permafrost. 
Your program must provide protection from thaw subsidence and 
freezeback effect, proper anchorage, and well control;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-30990 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 23, 2013

No. 04-12-00802-CV

Melissa SUTTON,

Appellant

v.

Patricia ANGELL

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-05-00128-CVK

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Steve Turner is the court reporter responsible for preparing, certifying, and timely filing 

the reporter’s record in this accelerated appeal. On December 31, 2012, Mr. Turner filed one 

volume of a two-volume reporter’s record. Attempts by the clerk of this court to contact Mr. 

Turner by telephone and have him file volume two have been unsuccessful.

Therefore, Mr. Turner is hereby ORDERED to file Volume Two of the reporter’s record 

no later than May 3, 2013. If Mr. Turner does not file Volume Two by May 3, 2013, a show 

cause order shall issue directing Mr. Turner to appear on a day certain and show cause why he 

should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record. The clerk of this court shall cause a 

copy of this order to be served on Mr. Turner by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by 

regular United States mail.

Because the trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the 

appellate record is timely filed, the clerk of this court shall also cause a copy of this order to be 

served upon the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).

It is so ORDERED on April 23, 2013.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT - 31.3**

 

MOSSIMO,INC.

 

CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, Vicken Festekjian, Chief FinancialOfficer of the registrant, certify that:

 

1.                   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofMossimo, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.                   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                   The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to usby others, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)              Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                   The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)              All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| /s/ VICKEN FESTEKJIAN   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Vicken Festekjian       |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 11, 2005    |

 

----
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF BLOCKBUSTER INC.



|                                                          |  |                 |  |                                                             
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary Name                                           |  |                 |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
|Ardnasillagh Ltd.                                         |  | United Kingdom 
|Blockbuster Argentina, S.A.                               |  | Argentina      
|Blockbuster Australia Pty. Ltd.                           |  | Australia      
|Blockbuster BEI Taiwan Ltd.                               |  | Taiwan         
|Blockbuster Canada Co.                                    |  | Nova Scotia    
|Blockbuster Canada Inc.                                   |  | Delaware       
|Blockbuster de Mexico, SA de CV                           |  | Mexico         
|Blockbuster Distribution, Inc.                            |  | Delaware       
|Blockbuster Entertainment Limited                         |  | United Kingdom 
|Blockbuster Entertainment (Ireland) Limited               |  | Ireland        
|Blockbuster Global Services Inc.                          |  | Delaware       
|Blockbuster Holdings Ireland                              |  | Ireland        
|Blockbuster International (Taiwan) B.V.                   |  | The Netherlands
|Blockbuster International Spain Inc.                      |  | Delaware       
|Blockbuster Investments LLC                               |  | Delaware       
|Blockbuster Italia, S.p.A.                                |  | Italy          
|Blockbuster Limited Partner Holdings LLC                  |  | Delaware       
|Blockbuster Procurement LP                                |  | Delaware       
|Blockbuster Texas LP                                      |  | Delaware       
|Blockbuster UK Limited                                    |  | United Kingdom 
|Blockbuster Uruguay Ltda.                                 |  | Uruguay        
|Blockbuster Video Danmark A/S                             |  | Denmark        
|Blockbuster Video Espana S.L.                             |  | Spain          
|Blockbuster Video International Corporation (Chile) Ltda. |  | Chile          
|Blockbuster Video Italy, Inc.                             |  | Delaware       
|Cityvision Limited                                        |  | United Kingdom 
|Direcorp, S.A. de D.V.                                    |  | Mexico         
|Game Brands Inc.                                          |  | Delaware       
|Games Station Limited                                     |  | United Kingdom 
|Movie Brands Inc.                                         |  | Delaware       
|Sercorp, S.A. de C.V.                                     |  | Mexico         
|Trading Zone Inc.                                         |  | Delaware       
|Xtra-Vision Limited                                       |  | Ireland
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Doherty, Respondent, v Colgate University, Appellant. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 899]

Crew III, J.P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 2, 2002, which denied the employer’s application for reconsideration and/or full Board review of a prior decision in favor of claimant.

In September 1997, claimant sustained a tear in the medial meniscus of his right knee in the course of his employment as a school soccer coach. Ultimately, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge adjudicated claimant with a 25% schedule loss of use of his right leg, entitling him to 72 weeks of benefits and authorizing medical treatment and care as necessary. This decision was affirmed by a Workers’ Compensation Board panel. The employer’s subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied, prompting this appeal.

As the employer appeals only from the denial of its request for. reconsideration and/or full Board review, the merits of the Board’s underlying decision are not properly before us *(see Matter of Palma v New York City Dept. of Corrections,*301 AD2d 774 [2003]; *Matter of Jean-Lubin v Home Care Servs. for Ind. Living,*295 AD2d 825, 826 [2002]). Hence, our review is limited to whether there was an abuse of the Board’s discretion or whether it acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in deny*811ing the employer’s request for reconsideration and/or full Board review *(see Matter of Thompson v General Motors Corp./Delphi Harrison,*276 AD2d 820, 821 [2000]). We find none. The opportunity to cross-examine a physician whose report has been incorporated into the record is contingent upon the request having been made in a timely fashion, which, in this matter, it was not *(see Matter of Floyd v Millard Fillmore Hosp.,*299 AD2d 610, 611 [2002]), and the employer failed to provide a reasonable explanation for this lapse *(see Matter of Hughes v Steuben County Self-Ins. Plan,*248 AD2d 757, 758 [1998]).

Carpinello, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 23.04
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Homestore, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Homestore, Inc. as of December 31,2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity andcomprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December31, 2004. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item15(a)(2) for the two years in the period ended December 31, 2004. These financial statements andschedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtainreasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Anaudit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in thefinancial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used andsignificant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statementpresentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all materialrespects, the consolidated financial position of Homestore, Inc. at December 31, 2004 and 2003, andthe consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years in theperiod ended December 31, 2004, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to thebasic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects, theinformation set forth therein.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States), the effectiveness of Homestore, Inc.’s internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2004, based on criteria established in Internal Control—IntegratedFramework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and ourreport dated March 7, 2005 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.                                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         
Los Angeles, California
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Louis Buchalter, Emanuel Weiss and Louis Capone, Appellants.

Argued March 2, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*928
      *Thomas Cradock Hughes, Acting District Attorney (Solomon A. Klein*and *Henry J. Walsh*of counsel), for motion.

*I. Maurice Wormser*and *J. Bertram Wegman*for Louis Buchalter, defendant-appellant.

*John Schulman*for Emanuel Weiss, defendant-appellant.

*Benjamin J. Jacobson*for Louis Capone, defendant-appellant.

Motion granted and wardens or other officers having custody of defendants directed to produce them before the Court of Appeals at the Court of Appeals Hall in the City of Albany, New York, on the twentieth day of July [1943] at nine o’clock in the forenoon of that day; that they may he dealt with according to. the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State of New York.
Thomas J. LIPANI, III, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and Home Improvements Center, LLC, Appellees.

No. 4D17-3489

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 14, 2018]

Thomas J. Lipani, III, Port Saint Lucie, pro se.

Cristina A. Velez, Tallahassee, for appellee Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian and Kuntz, JJ., and Fahnestock, Fabienne, Associate Judge, concur.