alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Devkumar Chichra, Appellant, v Shilpa Chichra, Respondent.

[53 NYS3d 836]

Appeal by the father from an amended order of the Family Court, Queens County (Sudeep Kaur, S.M.), dated September 22, 2016. The amended order fixed the amount of the father’s child support arrears at $7,105.20 as of April 20, 2016.

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father filed a petition, in effect, to modify his child support obligations set forth in a stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ judgment of divorce, and to adjust his child support arrears as set forth in his Support Collection Unit account in the amount of $12,513. Following a hearing, the Support Magistrate, inter alia, set the father’s arrears for basic child support at $8,038.20 as of April 20, 2016. The father filed objections, and the Family Court granted the father’s objection to so much of the Support Magistrate’s order as failed to credit the father for an additional child support payment that he made directly to the mother in the amount of $933. However, the Family Court denied the father’s remaining objections to the Support Magistrate’s order, determined the father’s arrears for basic child support to be $7,105.20 as of April 20, 2016, and remitted the matter to the Support Magistrate for the sole purpose of issuing a new order setting the arrears. In an amended order dated September 22, 2016, the Support Magistrate fixed the *849father’s arrears at $7,105.20 as of April 20, 2016. The father appeals.

The Support Magistrate properly fixed the father’s arrears for basic child support at $7,105.20 as of April 20, 2016 (see *generally Matter of Carene S. v Kendall S.,*96 AD3d 767, 767-768 [2012]; *Matter of Rube v Tornheim,*51 AD3d 806, 807 [2008]).

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Elizabeth Maldonado, Respondent, v Andy Reyes, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 909]

*527In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the putative father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated April 10, 2001, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate an order of filiation of the same court (Mayeri, H.E.), dated January 25, 1999.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of filiation as the Hearing Examiner properly advised the appellant of his statutory rights and the admission was knowingly and voluntarily made (see *Matter of McLeod v Emanuel,*268 AD2d 434 [2000]; *Matter of Sidoti v Velez,*278 AD2d 498 [2000]). Further, the appellant failed to come forward with any new evidence which could not have been discovered with due diligence before he admitted to paternity of the subject child (see *Matter of Croft v Gordon,*297 AD2d 344 [2002]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Boone, Appellant.

Submitted March 27, 2017;

decided March 30, 2017

Motion by Daniel R. Alonso, et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.

Judge Wilson taking no part.
No. 10-7860.

#### Victor Maldonado-Delgado, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1163, 131 S. Ct. 973,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 597.

178 L. Ed. 2d 799,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 401 Fed. Appx. 281.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-17-00127-CR

Andre L. Walker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR24,701, HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion is signed by both

appellant and his attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We grant the motion and dismissthe appeal. 

See id.

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Bourland

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: April 7, 2017

Do Not Publish
No. 10M54.

#### Sadiq K., Petitioner v. Maine Department of Health and Human Services.

562 U.S. 1105, 131 S. Ct. 847,

178 L. Ed. 2d 552,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9773.

December 13, 2010.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal granted.
# C_2015279EN.01003302.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Alpinestars Research v OHIM — Tung Cho and Wang Yu (A ASTER)

(Case T-521/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark A ASTER - Earlier Community word mark A-STARS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 279/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alpinestars Research Srl (Coste di Maser, Italy) (represented by: G. Dragotti, R. Valenti and S. Balice, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kean Tung Cho (Taichung City, Taiwan) and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu (Wuci Township, Taiwan)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 (Case R 2309/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Alpinestars Research Srl, on the one hand, and Kean Tung Cho and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu, on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 July 2013 (Case R 2309/2012-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 July 2013 (Case R 2309/2012-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

---
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Superior Bancorp;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    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 that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls 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.
  By:
    /s/ C. Stanley BaileyC. Stanley BaileyChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32


                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 Quarterly Report of Sunburst Acquisitions VII, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form  10-QSB  for the period ending  September 30, 2003
(the "Report"),  I, Jay Lutsky,  Principal  Executive  Officer of  the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Jay Lutsky
-----------------------
Principal Executive Officer
November 8, 2005
No. 09-10784.

#### Bryant Alexander Grover, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1171, 131 S. Ct. 981,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 335.

178 L. Ed. 2d 809,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 852, 131 S. Ct. 108, 178 L. Ed. 2d 67, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6143.
EXHIBIT 31.2: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification  I, Wang Lei, certify that:  1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of China Junlian Integrated Surveillance, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this  report;  3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this  report;  4.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.  Date: May 14, 2007 /s/ Wang Lei Wang Lei, Chief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 16  LETTER REGARDING CHANGE IN CERTIFYING ACCOUNTANT

Malin, Bergquist & Co., LLP
2402 West 8th Street
Erie, PA 16505

March 27, 2003

Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

We have read Item 4 of the Current Report on
Form 8-K/A of Erie Family Life Insurance Company for
March 27, 2003, and we agree
with the statements contained therein insofar as they relate to our
firm.

Very truly yours,

/S/ MALIN, BERGQUIST & COMPANY, LLP

MALIN, BERGQUIST & COMPANY, LLP
Certified Public Accountants

130
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1476

In re: METAPHYZIC EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL, f/k/a 

Antonio Edward McLean, a/k/a Metaphyzic Electromagnetic 

Supreme,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(7:16-cv-00060-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Metaphyzic El-ectromagnetic Supreme-El, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Metaphyzic El-ectromagnetic Supreme-El petitions for a writ 

of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to 

consider his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition under § 2241 and 

not as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We 

conclude that Supreme-El is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In 

re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Supreme-El is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
No. 10-7199.

#### Joseph Medley, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1075, 131 S. Ct. 676,

178 L. Ed. 2d 503,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9254.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 12.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17689]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

DATE AND TIME: Friday, July 10, 1998, 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., room 
540, Washington, DC 20425.

STATUS: 

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes of June 12, 1998 Meeting
III. Announcements
IV. Staff Director's Report
V. State Advisory Committee Appointments for Delaware, Missouri, Rhode 
Island, and Vermont
VI. ADA Report
    <bullet>  An Advisory Committee Appointments for Delaware, 
Missouri, Rhode Island, and Vermont
    <bullet> An Assessment of the Enforcement of Title II, Subtitle A 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act: U.S. Department of Justice
VII. Future Agenda Items

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Barbara Brooks, Press and 
Communications (202) 376-8312.
Stephanie Y. Moore,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-17689 Filed 6-29-98; 2:23 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 1292 Unemployed Number in thousands 35 to 39 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU03024934Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Unemployment Level - 35-39 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:08:56 PM)
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 46757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID DOD-2011-OS-0080]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice to alter a system of records; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On July 21, 2011 (76 FR 43666-43673), DoD published a notice 
announcing its intent to alter a Privacy Act System of Records. Routine 
use number 22 a. was incorrectly written. This notice corrects that 
error.

DATES: Effective August 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom 
of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, telephone: (703) 588-6830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 21, 2011, DoD published a notice 
announcing its intent to alter a system in its inventory of Privacy Act 
System of Records: Defense Enrollment Eligibility Recording System 
(DEERS). Subsequent to the publication of that notice, DoD discovered 
that the routine use on page 43669 was incorrectly published.

Correction

    In the notice (FR Doc. 2011-18397) published on July 21, 2011, (76 
FR 43666-43673) make the following correction. On page 43672, in the 
second column, replace paragraph 22 a. with ``Providing all Reserve 
Component military members to be matched against the Federal agencies 
for identifying those Reserve military members that are also Federal 
civil service employees with eligibility for the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits (FEHB) program. This disclosure by the Federal agencies 
will provide the DoD with the FEHB eligibility and Federal employment 
information necessary to determine initial and continuing eligibility 
for the TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) program and the TRICARE Retired 
Reserve (TRR) program (collectively referred to as purchased TRICARE 
programs). Reserve Component members who are not eligible for FEHB are 
eligible for TRS (section 1076d of title 10) or TRR (section 1076e of 
title 10).''

    Dated: July 26, 2011.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-19552 Filed 8-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
NICK HIGSON

AssistantSuperintendent

SoutheastIslandSchool District

(907) 254-8254

nhigson@sisd.org

Sincerely,

If you have any questions, please contact me at 907-254-8254 or nhigson@sisd.org.

Harris Air has been very reliable, flexible, and accommodating in meeting our needs

and the needs of the students at the Port Alexander School. All of us here at Southeast

Island School District fully support Harris Air in their quest to obtain an Air Carrier

Certificate.

.

SoutheastIsland School District has long since used Harris Air for service to and from

Klawock,Sitka and Port Alexander. SISD has a long-standing relationship with Harris

Air to provide transportation for teachers and other school staff in and out of Port

Alexander. We also rely on their services for transport of school freight, mail, and

emergency services. For the many years we have been doing business in Port

Alexander, Harris Air has been a reliable partner in our mission to deliver educational

services to the rural community of PA. I can say with certainty that it would be very

difficult, if not impossible, for us to maintain a school in Port Alexander without the

dedicationto providethese services in this remote part of Alaska.

I am writing this letter in support of Harris Air in their endeavor to obtain an Air Carrier

Certificatefrom the Departmentof Transportation.

To whom it may concern:

Re: Air Carrier Certificate

8/29/2014

SOUTHEAST ISL.t\ND SCHOqL DISTRICT

P.o. Box 19569,1010 Sandy Beach Road Thorne Bay,Alaska 99919

(907)828-8254 Fax: (907)828-8257 E-mail: sisd@sisd.org
# C_2013114EN.01004702.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/47

---

Action brought on 19 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-18/13)

2013/C 114/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to calculate the accrual of pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new GIP.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the decision of 17 January 2012 on the calculation of the accrual of his pension rights acquired before his entry into service at the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision of 17 January 2012 on the calculation of the accrual of his pension rights acquired before his entry into service at the Commission;

| — | where necessary, annulment of the decision to reject his complaint of 13 November 2012 seeking the application of the GIP and actuarial rates applicable at the time of his application for transfer of his pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

where necessary, annulment of the decision to reject his complaint of 13 November 2012 seeking the application of the GIP and actuarial rates applicable at the time of his application for transfer of his pension rights;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---