alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bismark Kwaku TORKORNOO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nina HELWIG, Esq.; John C. Monahan, Esq.; Mary Torkornoo; Jacqueline Emanga Ngole, Esq., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1674

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 25, 2017

Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo, Appellant Pro Se.

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion to enforce this Court’s judgment and mandate. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Torkornoo seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Willowbridge Strategic Trust
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0001005006
<NAME>              Willowbridge Strategic Trust
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos

<CASH>                          46,737,812

<SECURITIES>                    1,187,318

<RECEIVABLES>                   18,789

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                47,943,919

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  47,943,919

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,293,459

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      46,650,460

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    47,943,919

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,439,125

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                3,559,548

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (120,423)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (.31)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.02

       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

To the Board of Directors
of Homestore.com, Inc.:

  Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
report dated March 16, 2001, except as to Notes 3 and 21, which are as of
March 11, 2002, appearing in the Annual Report to Shareholders of
Homestore.com, Inc. (which report and consolidated financial statements are
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A) also included an audit of the
financial statement schedule listed in Item 14(a)(2) of this Form 10-K/A. In
our opinion, this financial statement schedule presents fairly, in all
material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction
with the related consolidated financial statements.

  As discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, the Company has restated its financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2000. As a result, the financial
statement schedule has also been restated.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Century City, California
March 11, 2002
----

Exhibit 14.1 

CONSENT OF SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY FELDMAN LLP 

The undersigned, Schwartz Levitsky Feldman llp, herebyconsents to the use of our name and the use of our opinion dated February 28,2008 on the consolidated financial statements of Micromem Technologies Inc.("the Company") included in its Annual Report on Form 20-F being filed by theCompany, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007. 

|              | /s/ Schwartz Levitsky Feldman    llp |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------|
| Toronto, Ontario  | Chartered Accountants                |
| February 28, 2008 | Licensed Public Accountants          |

 

 

 

----
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



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of drugstore.com, inc. (the Company) for the period ending January 2, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dawn Lepore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/    DAWN LEPOREDawn LeporeChief Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



March 17, 2005
#### Carmela Ammirati et al., as Administratrices of the Estate of John Durso, Deceased, Respondents, *v.*Suburban Fuel Oil Service, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted February 23, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 289 N. Y. 733.)
#### James H. McGean, Ex’r, *v.*The Metropolitan El. R. Co. and The Manhattan R. Co.

Appeal from judgment rendered at equity term.

*Davies & Rapallo,*for app’lt; *Roger Foster,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

The findings at fols. 87 and 104 are so manifestly repugnant to each other as to evidence an oversight on the part of the trial judge to which his attention should be called before a decision of the appeal. 57 N. Y. Supr. Ct., 281; 28 N. Y. State Rep., 577. The matter will, therefore, be remanded to the trial judge for such action as he deems proper (see 121 N. Y., 546; 31 N. Y. State Rep., 888), and the decision of the appeal will be reserved until the action of the trial judge is officially made known to the general term.
##### 



Re: Resignation Agreement
    October 9, 2007
    
    
    You will continue in your current capacity and assist ATG in the integration of
eStara.
    
    You will give ATG at least 1 month notice of resignation on or before December 1,
2007.
    
    At the time of your voluntary termination of ATG (on or before 12/31/07), we will
grant you your pro-rated 2007 bonus amount earned against stated criteria.
    
    Following your termination, and for the duration until 12/31/07, we will engage in a
consulting agreement with you to complete the integration. This contract will require you
to be available for questions, consultation and continued support in making the eStara
integration into ATG successful.
    
    Compensation for this consulting contract will consist of your remaining earned 2007
bonus amount and will be paid at the conclusion of the audited 2007 results.
    
    You will continue to receive all salary through your termination date. You will
continue to receive all the health & welfare benefits outlined in your offer of ATG
employment dated 9/15/2006 (the Offer Letter), through 12/31/2007.
    
    If your termination date occurs before 11/30/07, you will receive an additional bonus
equal to the closing price of ATGs common stock on Friday, November 30, 2007, multiplied
by 3,159. (For example, if the stock closes at $3.00 per share, you would receive a bonus
of $9,477.)
    
    The Offer Letter shall remain in effect, except as modified by the above terms of
this Resignation Agreement.
**Exhibit 32.2**

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Atrisco Oil and Gas, L.L.C. (the “Registrant”) for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Sanchez, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18            U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)     The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)     The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

Date: March 24, 2009
| By:    | /s/ Peter Sanchez       |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Peter Sanchez           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the registrant for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be            deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 10(B)

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.
                               555 MADISON AVENUE
                                   29TH FLOOR
                            NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022


                                                              September 12, 2002


Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549-0609

    Re: National Auto Credit, Inc. Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended July 31, 2002
    (Commission File No. 1-11601)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief
Financial Officer of National Auto Credit, Inc. (the "Issuer") hereby certify
that the periodic report referenced above and filed by the Issuer with the
Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Issuer.

                                                 Very truly yours,

                                                   /s/ Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
                                                   --------------------------
                                                   Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


                                       30
<PAGE>   1



EXHIBIT 15



                     INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
NCS HealthCare, Inc. and Subsidiaries


We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of NCS
HealthCare, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of September 30, 1997, and
the related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the
three-month periods ended September 30, 1997 and 1996. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be performed
for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements referred
to above for them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of NCS HealthCare, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of June 30, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, not
presented herein, and in our report dated August 1, 1997, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion,
the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of June 30, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


Cleveland, Ohio                                       /s/   Ernst & Young LLP
October 28, 1997
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2523

___________

Georgia Artz; Lisa Belgarde; *

Emily Davis; and Sonia Zerr, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2008

Filed: May 2, 2008

___________

Before RILEY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The appellants in this matter, Georgia Artz, Lisa Belgarde, Emily Davis, and

Sonia Zerr, are all employees of the Quentin N. Burdick Memorial Health Care

Facility (“the Facility”) which is operated by Indian Heath Services (“IHS”). They
1

The Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge for the District

of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the

parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

seek reversal of the district court’s1

 grant of summary judgment on their Privacy Act

claim. We affirm.

As part of an earlier Privacy Act investigation, the IHS officer in charge of

Privacy Act matters prepared an investigative report, concluding that the appellants

had violated the Privacy Act rights of certain co-workers. Those co-workers initiated

a lawsuit, and the investigative report was released during discovery in that case.

Subsequently, the appellants initiated this action, contending that their own Privacy

Act rights had been violated when the investigative report was released in the prior

lawsuit. 

We agree, however, with the district court that the investigative report, which

was filed chronologically by the Facility and was not subject to being retrieved based

on any personally identifiable information, such as name or social security number,

was not retrieved from a “system of records” as contemplated by the Privacy Act. See

5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) (“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a

system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another

agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of,

the individual to whom the record pertains . . . .”); see also § 552a(a)(5) (“‘[S]ystem

of records’ means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which

information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number,

symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual . . . .”); Doe v. Dep’t

of Veterans Affairs, 519 F.3d 456, 463 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Congress limited the type of

disclosure that would lead to liability by proscribing only the disclosure of a record

‘contained in a system of records,’ not the disclosure of all records or information.”
-3-

(quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b))). Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary

judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
Atrazine MCL question Wynne Miller
to: Karl Tupper 01/12/2011 08:01 PM Cc: Melanie Biscoe, Pamela Barr, Anne Overstreet Show Details

Follow Up: Urgent Priority.

History: This message has been replied to. Mr. Tupper,

In response to your question about the atrazine MC L, I have attached an excerpt from the atrazine background section, which is located on page 1 5523 of the March 2010 Six Year Review 2 Federal Register (FR) notice. This excerpt provides inform ation about the basis of the existing MCLG and MCL, which were established in 1991.

"EPA published the current NPDWR for atrazine on January 30, 1991 (56 FR 3526 (USEPA, 1991c)). The NPDWR established an MCLG and an MCL of 0.003 mg /L. EPA based the MCLG on a reference dose of 0.005 mg/kg-day and a cancer classification of C, possible human carcinogen." You can link to the March 2010 FR notice at the following website: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingco ntaminants/sixyearreview/second_review/index.cfm

Sincerely, Wynne Miller

Karl Tupper ---01/11/2011 06:47:12 PM---Melanie, I' ve been scouring the Office of Water's webpages (water.epa.gov) trying to

Melanie,

I've been scouring the Office of Water's webpages ( water.epa.gov ) trying to figure out how they came up with 3 ppb as the MCL for atrazine in drinking water. Specific, what study or studies form the basis of it, what unc ertainty factors were applied, etc. I can't seem to find anything on their webpages, but maybe that's becuase the rule predates the internet (it came into effect in 1992, as best I can tell). Can you point me in the right direction? Are there documents you send me or link to or is there someone within OW that you could suggest I contact?

Please let me know! Thanks, Karl

-- Karl A. Tupper, Staff Scientist From: Karl Tupper <karl@panna.org> To: Melanie Biscoe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/11/2011 06:47 PM Subject: Atrazine MCL? 

### Page 1 of 2

1/14/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\mbiscoe\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web5529.

...Pesticide Action Network North America 49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 office: 415.981.1771 x 314 fax: 415.981.1991 web: http://www.panna.org blog: http://panna.org/blogs/karl

- tupper 

### Page 2 of 2

1/14/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\mbiscoe\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web5529.

...
#### Ronnie Lee CASH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Joseph MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6477

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 29, 2017

Ronnie Lee Cash, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assis*659tant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Lee Cash seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Cash has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*
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.

 November 20, 2019

b1113

Order 

Clerk

November 20, 2019

159038

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

and CALEB CASANOVA,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 159038

COA: 339799

Ingham CC: 16-000870-CK

COMPASS HEALTHCARE PLC d/b/a COMPASS

HEALTH, and LANSING NEUROSURGERY,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 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.
ex68.htm







 


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 







 


 



Exhibit 10.65




 







 


 


$250,000                                                                           Date:  December 16, 2011


 


 







 


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Warren Breslow, the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($250,000.00), together with interest of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.


 


 


The entire principal and any accrued interest shall be fully and immediately payable UPON DEMAND of any holder thereof.


 


 







 


 


 

 


 


 


”Borrower”


 


Aura Systems, Inc.

















____________________


Melvin Gagerman


Chief Executive Officer







 


Dated: December 16, 2011