alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-7115 

BOOKER T. MCNEILL, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Booker T. McNeill, of Erwin, North Carolina, pro se. 

Marla T. Conneely, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With 

her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, 

Director, and Mark A. Melnick, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. 

Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Christopher P. McNamee, Staff 

Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

 

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

Judge Lawrence B. Hagel 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2007-7115 

BOOKER T. MCNEILL, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

 __________________________ 

DECIDED: July 13, 2007 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER and PROST, Circuit Judges and LINARES, District Judge.

∗

PER CURIAM. 

 Booker T. McNeill appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims, which affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ decision denying his claim for 

service connection of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). McNeill v. Nicholson, 

No. 05-1413 (Vet. App. Dec. 7, 2006). Because we do not have authority to review “a 

challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case” absent a 

constitutional issue, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), we dismiss his appeal. 

 

∗

 Honorable Jose L. Linares, District Judge, United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
EXHIBIT 10

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-11728) pertaining to
the Employees Stock Options Plan, Founders Warrants and other Warrants of Wavecom S.A., of our report dated February 7, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Wavecom,
included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

ERNST &
YOUNG Audit

Represented
by Jean-Yves Jégourel

Courbevoie,
France
April 15, 2004

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statement of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the
Company's form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                         <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            948,963
<SECURITIES>                                    3,209,699
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                4,251,161
<PP&E>                                            135,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (30,329)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  4,374,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              44,866
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              373
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,328,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    4,374,028
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (1,067,669)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,067,669)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,067,669)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,067,669)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.20)
        




</TABLE>
Jaime C. PARRISH v. Paul R. PARRISH

2016-CT-00871-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 20, 2018 Closed: June 14, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

SHERDINA WILLIAMS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 705 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
From: Ed Milliken [mailto:emilliken@bowerstonshale.com]

Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 2:08 PM

To: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>

Subject: RE: Bowerston Hanover Plant

Our plant cannot go above 10 tons per year of HF or HCl at our full capacity. While we have a limit 

in our permit on our throughput that would ensure that we never exceed major source levels for 

HAP, it is physically impossible for us to reach that throughput limit. Therefore, we believe that we 

meet the definition of a “true area source.”

Ed Milliken

From: Raymond, Gabrielle [mailto:graymond@rti.org]

Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:52 AM

To: Ed Milliken

Subject: Bowerston Hanover Plant

Hello Mr. Miliken,

In the current inventory of Brick facilities (see attached page 5), the Bowerston Hanover Plant is 

labeled as an Area Source (synthetic) for HAP. Can you confirm if this is accurate? 

Thank you,

Gabrielle

Gabrielle Raymond

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541-7015

<< EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-0125.pdf>>
February 2, 2010

MEMORANDUM

TO: Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161

SUBJECT: Instructions for Accessing the Forest and Agricultural Sector 

Optimization Model (FASOM) and the Food and Agricultural 

Policy Research Institute (FAPRI-CARD) Models as Used for 

the Renewable Fuels Standard Final Rulemaking

To provide additional information on the agricultural economic models used in the 

Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) final rulemaking (FRM), this memo provides 

instructions on how to access the FAPRI-CARD models as modified by the Center for 

Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University, as well as the 

FASOM model.

The FAPRI-CARD models can be accessed via the docket under the name “FAPRICARD Model for RFS2 Final Rulemaking.”

The FASOM model can also be accessed, free of charge, but subject to customary use 

restrictions to protect the proprietary nature of the model. To access the FASOM model, 

please contact:

Jefferson Cole

Transportation Climate Division

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.

Room 6510Z, Mail Code: 6401A

Phone: (202) 564-1283 Fax: (202) 564-1686

Email: cole.jefferson@epa.gov
#### Martin H. Newman, as Administrator with the Will Annexed of William Newman, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Benjamin A. Roth et al., Individually and as Executors of and Trustees under the Will of Henry Roth, Deceased, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Argued January 7, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*560
      *Adolph Feldblum*for appellant.

*Lloyd B. Kanter*and *Oscar A. Lewis*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the transfer of the Necaro Co., Inc., shares by appellant was the agreed consideration for the release of appellant from his obligation under the agreement of guaranty. No opinion. (See 290 N. Y. 865.)

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Riffey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
Exhibit 32(b)



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED MARCH 31, 2005



The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of
Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the Issuer). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Issuer for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2005.



I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.



This certification is executed as of April 27, 2005.



/s/ Michael R. SayreChief Financial Officer




28
#### Flint Fitzgerald JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Secretary N.C. Dept. of Public Safety, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6111

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 19, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

*119Flint Fitzgerald Johnson, Jr,, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Peter Andrew Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Flint Fitzgerald Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized, and denying Johnson’s summary judgment motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); *Jones v. Braxton,*392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Johnson has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*

*

 The district court correctly found that Johnson had a prior § 2254 petition dismissed with prejudice. *See Johnson v. Keller,*1:10-cv-00373-TDS-WWD (M.D.N.C., PACER Nos. 12-13). Although we were unaware of the dismissal with prejudice when we previously denied as unnecessary Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2012) motion for prefiling authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, allowing Johnson to litigate his habeas claims without § 2244 authorization "would subvert the purpose of the [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Actj’s gatekeep-ing provisions: to restrict habeas petitioners from taking multiple bites at the apple.” *Dunn v. Singletary,*168 F.3d 440, 442 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Johnson must first obtain this Court’s authorization to file a successive habeas petition in the district court.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 10375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03888]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute 
of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel. The 
meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as 
amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Career Development (Ks) and 
Conference support (R13) Review.
    Date: March 17, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, 6707 
Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Songtao Liu, MD, Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 
National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 920, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-3025, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99eaf6f7feedf8f6b7f5f0ecd9f7f0f1b7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="295a46474e5d48460745405c69474041074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 17, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03888 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

136531 Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
J ustices

v SC: 136531 COA: 284029

DOUGLAS JAY CLARK, Defendant-Appellant. Lenawee CC: 07-012999-FC, 07-013000-FC, 07-013001-FC, 07-013003-FH, 07-013005-FC, 07-013006-FC, 07-013007-FC

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 7, 2008 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.

l0915 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 22, 2008

Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 March 27, 2019 a0320

Order 

Clerk

March 27, 2019

158244

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158244

COA: 338333

Jackson CC: 15-005634-FC

SCOTTY EUGENE BODMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2018 

judgment 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.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6378 

To permit the remains of any Medal of Honor recipient to lie in honor 

in the rotunda of the United States Capitol, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2023 

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

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To permit the remains of any Medal of Honor recipient 

to lie in honor in the rotunda of the United States 

Capitol, 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. PERMITTING REMAINS OF MEDAL OF HONOR 

4 RECIPIENTS TO LIE IN HONOR IN CAPITOL 

5 ROTUNDA. 

6 (a) REQUEST OF SURVIVING NEXT OF KIN.—At the 

7 request of the primary surviving next of kin of a Medal 

8 of Honor recipient, the remains of the Medal of Honor 

9 recipient shall be permitted to lie in honor in the rotunda 

10 of the United States Capitol. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6378 IH

1 (b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE

2 CAPITOL.—The Architect of the Capitol, under the direc3 tion of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 

4 the President pro tempore of the Senate, shall take such 

5 steps as the Architect considers appropriate to carry out 

6 this Act, including determining the date and time during 

7 which the remains of a Medal of Honor recipient shall be 

8 permitted to lie in honor and establishing regulations to 

9 determine who is the primary surviving next of kin of a 

10 Medal of Honor recipient. 

11 (c) DEFINITION.—In this Act, the term ‘‘Medal of 

12 Honor recipient’’ has the meaning given such term in sec13 tion 1074h of title 10, United States Code. 

14 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall apply with re15 spect to an individual who dies on or after the date of 

16 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
David F. PETRANO, an individual, Mary Katherine Day-Petrano, an individual, Unknown Tenant I, Unknown Tenant II, and Other Unknown Persons or Unknown Spouses claiming by, through and under any of the above named defendants, Petitioners, v. Darlene P. BAYLOR, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1360

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 7, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 29, 2018

David F. Petrano and Mary Katherine Day-Petrano, pro se, Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

*991The petition for writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

Wetherell, Rowe, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
ex10-8.htm


UNDERTAKING BY


VAMPT BEVERAGE USA, CORP.


 


TO:           KALAMALKA PARTNERS LTD.







WHEREAS:


 




	
A. 

	
Pursuant to a trademark license agreement dated August 5, 2011 between Vampt Beverage Corp. (“Vampt Canada”) as licensor and Vampt Brewing Company Limited (the “Licensee”) as licensee, as assigned by Vampt Canada to Vampt Beverage USA, Corp. (the “Licensor”) pursuant to an assignment agreement dated April ___, 2012 (the original agreement and the assignment together, as amended, substituted or replaced from time to time, being the “Trademark License Agreement”), the Licensor granted to the Licensee a license to use certain trademarks of the Licensor in the territory of the United States of America.









 




	
B. 

	
Pursuant to an agency and interlender agreement (the “Agency Agreement”) dated April ___, 2012 among the Licensor, the Licensee, Kalamalka Partners Ltd. (the “Agent”) and certain lenders (the “Lenders”), the Lenders appointed the Agent to act on their behalf as to certain matters relating to loans made by the Lenders to the Licensor and the Licensee on a joint and several basis (the Licensor and the Licensee, together, being the “Borrowers”) as evidenced by the Notes (as defined in the Agency Agreement).









 




	
C. 

	
Pursuant to a security agreement (the “Security Agreement”) dated April ___, 2012 between the Agent and the Licensee, the Licensee granted the Agent a security interest in the Collateral (as defined in the Security Agreement).









 




	
D. 

	
It is a requirement of the loans to the Borrowers from the Lenders that the Licensor execute and deliver this undertaking with respect to the Trademark License Agreement.









 







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Lenders making the loans to the Borrowers, the Licensor undertakes to both the Agent and the Lenders that it will not terminate the Trademark License Agreement without the prior written consent of the Agent (notwithstanding any rights to the contrary the Licensor may have under said Trademark License Agreement) unless or until one of the following events occurs:









	
1. 

	
the Borrowers pay in full to the Agent on behalf of the Lenders all principal and interest owing under the Notes; or
















	
2. 

	
all of the Collateral is sold or disposed of by or at the direction of the Agent or the Lenders pursuant to the enforcement of the Lenders’ security under the terms of the Notes or the Security Agreement.














Dated this ____ day of April, 2012












VAMPT BEVERAGE USA, CORP.


by its authorized signatory












________________________________


Ian Toews, President & Director