alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: August 7, 2014 518352 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of 

WALTER W. McCARTHY,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 9, 2014

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ.

__________

Glass Krakower, LLP, New York City (Bryan D. Glass of

counsel), for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City

(Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board, filed April 22, 2013, which, among other things, ruled

that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment

insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment

without good cause.

Claimant took a job as a plumber based on the

representations of his union business agent as to the hours he

would be working, but left the job after it became apparent that

those representations had been inaccurate. Prior to quitting,

claimant made no effort to address the issue with either the

employer or his union (see Matter of Sampica [Commissioner of

Labor], 252 AD2d 702, 703 [1998]). Dissatisfaction with one's

work schedule does not constitute good cause for leaving one's

employment, and substantial evidence accordingly supports the

decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying
-2- 518352 

claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits

(see Matter of della Croce [Commissioner of Labor], 117 AD3d

1249, 1249 [2014]; Matter of Hurley, 67 AD3d 1153, 1154 [2009]). 

Inasmuch as claimant falsely reported when applying for benefits

that he had left the job due to a lack of work, substantial

evidence similarly supports the Board's finding that he had made

a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits (see Matter of

DeGennaro [Commissioner of Labor], 68 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2009]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### Vincente JARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMPTON ROADS SHIPPING ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1120

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Vincente Jarrett, Appellant Pro Se. Dean Taylor Buckius, Jennifer Lynn Eaton, VANDEVENTER BLACK, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vincente Jarrett appeals the district court’s order granting Hampton Roads Shipping Association’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Jarrett’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Jarrett has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Jackson v. Lightsey,*775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we grant Jarrett leave to proceed informa pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION

302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Steve A. Smith, Jr., certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2019 of Duke Mountain Resources, 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; 

 

Date:May 13, 2020*/s/Steve A. Smith, Jr.* 

Steve A. Smith, Jr.

Certification of Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James H. Mackaness, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, certify that the Quarterly Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 4, 2009 (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IRIDEX Corporation.

Date: August 13, 2009

|       |  |                                                                     
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ JAMES H. MACKANESS                                              
|Name:  |  | James H. Mackaness                                                  
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
## Court ofAppeals DEC 2 i 2015

Lisa Matt 

## Cleric, 5th District December 21, 2015

Lisa Matz, Clerk Fifth Court of Appeals 500 Commerce Street, Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75202

Re: Case No. 05-15-00956-CV
Dear Ms. Matz: Please find attached an Amended Motion to the filing ofFriday, December 18, 2015. 

### The request for extension of time to obtain recordings from a March 2015 hearing are withdrawn. Ms. Dugger of the 296th District Courtwill send the recordings for the last hearing that are due today to your courts. 

### Iretain the motion for extension of time to reply to defendants' filings, ifnecessary, 

### although Ihave replied to some ofthesefilings. Irequest that the alloted timeof a month be granted me to supplement the briefthat was filed with the references from the records and recordings only gained within the last week. 

### Please do not make any opinions or judgments or dismiss this case. Asupplemental briefwill be filed within a month and Ihope to gain legal help with this case. 

### Thank you forall of yourconsiderations. I'm grateful for anyhelp from the court of appeals with this cause. Sincerely yours,

Susan Ann Fishe Pro Se Plaintiff P. O. Box 460461SAF

enclosure Garland, TX 75046 susanfisher972@yahoo.com 214-730-2578
| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Registrant. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|       /s/ Bryan F. Bulawa                                                                                     |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | Bryan F. Bulawa |
| Title:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          | Chief Financial Officer of DEP Holdings, LLC |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            | the General Partner of Duncan Energy Partners L.P. |

----
#### Duncan, Appellant, *v.*Duncan.

Argued March 23, 1953.

Same case in Superior Court: 171 Pa. Super. Ct. 69.

*Samuel J. Margiotti,*with him *Charles J. Margiotti*and *Margiotti & Casey,*for appellant.

*Anthony Cavalcante,*for appellee.

*309April 13, 1953:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the Superior Court reversing the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County and dismissing the libel, is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Ross, reported in 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 69, 90 A. 2d 357.
# EUR-Lex - 32000Y0909(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000Y0909(02)

**Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty - Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal C 258 , 09/09/2000 P. 0003 - 0003 *

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2000/C 258/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of adoption of the decision: 16.5.2000

Member State: Germany (Land Brandenburg)

Aid No: N 480/99

Title: R & D aid to Applikationszentrum Stahl eV

Objective: R & D/ECSC steel

Legal basis: Ad hoc, financing partially under the Resider II operational programme for Brandenburg, approved by the Commission on 24 April 1996

Budget: DEM 1,016 million (EUR 520000)

Aid intensity or amount: 75 %

Duration: 2000 to 2001

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/sg/sgb/state_aids

Date of adoption of the decision: 16.5.2000

Member State: Germany (Thuringia)

Aid No: N 18/2000

Title: Financial measures by the BvS (successor to the Treuhand agency) and the Land of Thuringia to assist the firm Thüringer Planoforte GmbH

Objective: Manufacture of pianos and other keyboard instruments

Aid intensity or amount: DEM 2520000 EUR (1288455)

Duration: 2000 to 2002

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/sg/sgb/state_aids

Date of adoption of the decision: 12.7.2000

Member State: United Kingdom

Aid No: N 790/99

Title: Tonnage tax

Objective: To create a favourable fiscal regime in support of the UK maritime transport sector

Legal basis: Finance Act 2000

Budget: Tax foregone is estimated to be in the region of GBP 40 million per year

Aid intensity or amount: Does not exceed the total amount of taxes and social contributions collected from shipping companies and seafarers

Duration: Unlimited

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/sg/sgb/state_aids
EXHIBIT
32




STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002,


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350




The
undersigned, Xiqun Yu, is Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Tia I, Inc. (the “Company”). This statement is being furnished in connection
with the filing by the Company of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended  September 30, 2008 (the “Report”).




By
execution of this statement, we certify that:




The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and





The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates
and for the periods covered by the Report.




This
statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.




It is not
intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed
original 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.




Date:
      December 24, 2008
              /s/ Xiqun YuXiqun
      Yu
                Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6394 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress 

a report on promoting broadband Internet access service for veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2016 

Mr. MCNERNEY (for himself and Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress a report on promoting broadband Internet access service for veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Broadband 

5 Access for Veterans Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORT ON PROMOTING BROADBAND INTERNET 

7 ACCESS SERVICE FOR VETERANS. 

8 (a) VETERAN DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

9 ‘‘veteran’’ has the meaning given the term in section 101 

10 of title 38, United States Code. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6394 IH

1 (b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 1 year after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Commu3 nications Commission shall submit to Congress a report 

4 on promoting broadband Internet access service for vet5 erans, in particular low-income veterans and veterans re6 siding in rural areas. In such report, the Commission 

7 shall— 

8 (1) examine such access and how to promote 

9 such access; and 

10 (2) provide findings and recommendations for 

11 Congress with respect to such access and how to 

12 promote such access. 

13 (c) PUBLIC NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO COM14 MENT.—In preparing the report required by subsection 

15 (b), the Commission shall provide the public with notice 

16 and an opportunity to comment on broadband Internet ac17 cess service for veterans, in particular low-income veterans 

18 and veterans residing in rural areas, and how to promote 

19 such access. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Katherine B. ROBINSON; Dana B. Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHESAPEAKE BANK OF MARYLAND; Proctor Financial, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1217

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

*783Katherine B. Robinson, Dana B. Williams, Appellants Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Katherine B. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint against Defendants after Robinson failed to comply with the district court’s prior order directing Robinson to supplement her complaint. 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). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, the order Robinson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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*

*

 We do not remand this matter to the district court because the court previously afforded Robinson the chance to supplement her complaint. *Cf. Goode,*807 F.3d at 629-30.
#### Ruth Patricia ROSADOS, Appellant v. Barack Hussein OBAMA, Ex-President, Appellee

No. 17-5137

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: October 18, 2017

Ruth Patricia Rosados, Pro Se

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

BEFORE: Tatel and Griffith, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed April 27, 2017, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See, e.g., Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Because the allegations in the complaint are “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision,” the district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 651 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 820 Elmwood Avenue in Providence, Rhode 

Island, as the ‘‘Sister Ann Keefe Post Office’’. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 651 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SISTER ANN KEEFE POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 820 Elmwood Avenue in Provi4 dence, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Sister Ann Keefe Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sister Ann Keefe Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 29, 2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Gary Dean MAXFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES, a division of Onewest Bank, FSB; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35023

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 1, 2017

Jill J. Smith, Esquire, Attorney, Natural Resource Law Group, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Laura N. Coughlin, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Seattle, WA, Wright, Jonathan D. Fink, Attorney, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gary Dean Maxfield appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim for rescission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Serra v. Lappin,*600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly, dismissed Maxfield’s action as time-barred because Maxfield did not send a notice of rescission to defendants within three years of consummation of the loan. *See*15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (providing a right of rescission within three years of the date of the consummation of a loan if the lender fails to make required disclosures to the borrower); *Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 790, 792, 190 L.Ed.2d 650 (2015) (a borrower may exercise right of rescission by notifying the lender of borrower’s intent to rescind within three years after the transaction is consummated); *Miguel v. Country Funding Corp.,*309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[Section] 1635(f) is a statute of repose, depriving the courts of subject matter jurisdiction when a § 1635 claim is brought outside the three-year limitation period.”). We reject as without merit Max-field’s contention that the subject loan transaction was not consummated.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of documents filed with the county recorder’s office. *See*Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (court may take judicial notice of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute because it ... can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”); *Lee v. City of Los Angeles,*250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and stating that court may take judicial notice of matters of public record).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, *732*See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.