alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7597

ERIC MAURICE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PAUL F. KRADEL, Chief Psychologist; DOCTOR

RAJAU, Psychologist,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-1543-S)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Maurice Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General,

Baltimore, Maryland; Frederick William Goundry, III, VARNER &

KASLICK, Frederick, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Richardson v. Kradel, No. CA-97-1543-S (D. Md. Oct. 1,

1997). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 41872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21005]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: National Science Foundation, National Science 
Board.

DATE AND TIME: August 13, 1998, 1:00 p.m., Closed Session; August 13, 
1998, 2:15 p.m., Open Session.

PLACE: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1225, 
Arlington, VA 22230.

STATUS: Part of this meeting will be open to the public. Part of this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Thursday, August 13, 1998

Closed Session (1:00 p.m.-2:15 p.m.)

--Minutes, May 1998
--Personnel
--Awards and Agreements
--NSF Budget & Long Range Planning

Thursday, August 13, 1998

Open Session (2:15 p.m.-5:30 p.m.)

--Swearing in of NSF Director
--Minutes, May 1998
--Closed Session Items for November 1998
--Chair's Report
--Director's Report
--Briefing--PCAST Environment Report
--Break
--Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) Plan
--Presentation on International Issues
--Strategies for Human Resource Development
--NSB Strategic Plan
--Report from Committees
--Other Business
--Adjourn
Marta Cehelsky,
Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-21005 Filed 8-3-98; 10:31 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Duke Porter, Petitioner, v. The State of Florida, *Respondent.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed April 20, 1926.

*W. E. B. Smith*and *Carter &*Solomon, for Petitioner;

*J. B. Johnson,*Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State-.

Per Curiam.

— Upon a charge that he did "unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control certain alcoholic and intoxicating liquors and beverages not permitted by law, to-wit: rum or moonshine whiskey,” one Duke Porter was convicted in the County Judge’s Court and sentenced to a fine *and*imprisonment. The judgment of conviction states that "said sentence of imprisonment being imposed because by Acts of 1923, imprisonment is required.” The sentence was affirmed by the Circuit Court.

On certiorari issued by this court, it is contended that Chapter 8266, Acts of 1923, under which the sentence was imposed is unconstitutional in that it violates Section 16, Article III, which provides that "each law enacted in the legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter prop*668erly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. ’ ’

The title of Chapter 9266, Acts of 1923, is as follows:

"AN ACT to Amend Section 5486 of the Revised General Statutes of the State of Florida, Relating to and to Provide Penalties for a Violation of such Section as Amended.”

The statute purports to change the sentence from fine or imprisonment or fine and imprisonment to fine *and*imprisonment, without any alternative.

Section 5486, Revised General Statutes of 1920, which Chapter 9266 purports to amend relates to the penalty for first and second offenses for violating the provisions of the prohibition law. The title to Chapter 9266, Acts of 1923, does not briefly or otherwise express the subject of the Act, therefore, the Act is inoperative. Webster v. Powell, 36 Fla. 703, 18 South. Rep. 441; The Borrowdale, 39 Fed. Rep. 376; Harland v. Territory, 3 Wash. Ter. 131, 13 Pac. Rep. 453; Wall v. Garrison, 11 Colo. 515, 19 Pac. Rep. 469; People v. Hills, 35 N. Y. 449; 36 Cyc. 1030.

The title to Chapter 9266, Acts of 1923, is quite different from that of Chapter 5692 adjudicated in Stokes v. Galloway, 61 Fla. 437, 54 South. Rep. 799.

The judgment imposing a fine *and*imprisonment is quashed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur;

Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Montana Twenty First Judicial District Court. County of Ravalli.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- JACOB PETER BACHMAN, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-15-274

DECISION

On July 21, 2016, the Court sentenced the Defendant as a persistent felony offender to a commitment to a term of incarceration for a period of fifteen (15) years at a state prison to be designated by the Department of Corrections, for the offense of Charge #1: Failure to Register as a Sexual or Violent Offender, in violation of §§46-23-505 and 46-23-507, MCA; and to a commitment to a term of incarceration for a period of fifteen (15) years at a state prison to be designated by the Department of Corrections, for the offense of Charge #2: Failure to Register as a Sexual or Violent Offender, in violation of §§46-23-505 and 46-23-507, MCA, to run concurrently with the sentence in Charge #1. The Court granted the Defendant credit for time served in jail prior to sentencing in the amount of 247 days.

On November 17, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant appeared by Vision Net from the Crossroads Correctional Center and was represented by Nicole Gilbert, a third year law student under the supervision of Brent Getty of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are *97insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Done in open Court this 17th day of November, 2016.

DATED this 8th day of December, 2016.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR


RULE
15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of Spine Pain Management, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William F. Donovan, M.D., the principal financial officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date:
      November 15, 2010
            By:
            /s/ William F. Donovan,
  M.D.William
      F. Donovan, M.D.Principal
      Financial Officer
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 15, 2020 Session **TIMOTHY A. BAXTER v. JENNIFER D. ROWAN Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Madison County**  **No. 55 -** **48873 Larry McKenzie, Judge** 

**___________________________________ No.**  **W2018 -** **02209 -** **COA -** **R3 -** **JV**

**___________________________________** KENNY ARMSTRONG , J., concurring separately. I concur in the majority’ s holding that an unwed father, who previously executed a VAP, has standing to sue for custody and visitation rights to his minor child. I also concur in the ho lding reversing the trial court’ s award of visitation rights to the paternal grandmother. I write separately only to highlight my concern about the procedure used by the unwed father in this case to obtain his visitation rights. Here, father filed his motion to obtain visitation rights under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36 - 6 - 301. However, from my research, section 36 - 6 - 301 is inapplicable to custody and visitation proceedings that involve parents who have never been married. Rather, I am o f the opinion that, in cases such as the one at bar, where the parents were never married, Tennessee Code Annotated section 3 6 -2 - 311 is the only mechanism by which visitation rights may be obtained. S ection 36 -2 - 311 is the parentage statute that specifically addresses a trial court’ s authority to make an order determining custody and visitation rights where unwed parents are involved. **Graham v.**  **Caples** , 325 S.W.3d 578, 582 (Tenn. 2010) (citation omitted) (“Where a conflict is presented between two statutes, a more specific statutory provision takes precedence over a more general provision.”). Section 36 -2 - 311 provides, in pertinent part, that, “Upon establishing parentage, the court shall make an order declaring the father of the child. This order shall include the following . . . [d] etermination of visitation or parental access pursuant to chapter 6 of this title .” Because father is claiming visitation rights based on his execution of a VAP and because mother and father were never married, I conclude that the only mechanism by which father may seek visitation is through section 36 -2 - 311. s/ Kenny Armstrong KENNY ARMSTRONG , JUDGE
EXHIBIT 31.3
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Frederic M. Poses, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of American Standard Companies Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:    (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;    (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;    (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and    (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:
1

 

   (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 2, 2005
By:      /s/ Frederic M. Poses
5 December 2013 ******************************

NSN: 8940-01-523-0786 (MMM) * MONOGRAPH NO: FS3-09A*

 ******************************

Item: Nuts and raisins with pan coated chocolate disks (Type II)

Document: PCR-N-003, Nut and Fruit Mix, Packaged in a Flexible Pouch, Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 370 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Free flowing mixture of nuts (coated peanuts, coated walnuts, almonds, filberts), 

coated raisins, and pan coated chocolate disks. Free of clumped ingredients that cannot 

be broken with light finger pressure. Pan coated chocolate disks have a high gloss 

candy shell and a double-convex lens shape.

Odor: Unsalted, shelled, roasted peanuts, walnuts, almonds, filberts, raisins and sweet milk 

chocolate.

Flavor: Unsalted, shelled, roasted peanuts, walnuts, almonds, filberts, raisins and sweet milk 

chocolate.

Texture: Firm to crunchy nuts; moist, chewy raisins; pan coated chocolate disks of such 

hardness that they cannot be easily crushed or cracked.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: All components darkened or clumped together. Nuts and pan coated disks crushed or 

broken.

Odor: Stale, rancid nuts or pan coated disks.

Flavor: Stale, rancid nuts or pan coated disks.

Texture: Soft nuts; dry, hard raisins; hard, cracked/broken pan coated disks.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Product is considered serviceable if clumps of nuts, raisins, and pan coated chocolate disks can be 

broken with light finger pressure.

Special Notes

This product pouch shall be nitrogen flushed or contain an oxygen scavenger. If defect such as 

oxidized or rancid odors or flavors exist, they are likely due to package failure or the absence of an 

oxygen scavenger. There may be some loose and/or detached skins and peanut splits.
---

|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, Robert D. McDougal, the Chief Financial Officer of Ireland
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010, and to which this certification
      is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                            

| | By:    | /s/ Robert D. McDougal               
| | ------ | -------------------------------------
| |        |                                      
| | Name:  | ROBERT D. MCDOUGAL                   
| |        |                                      
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| |        |                                      
| | Date:  | November 22, 2010                    

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
No. 09-8909.

#### Christopher L. Temple, Petitioner v. Wendy Warmer, Warden.

559 U.S. 990, 130 S. Ct. 1755,

176 L. Ed. 2d 211,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2330.

March 8, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 29, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40466 Conference Calendar

JOHN W. BANOS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus L. GAIL, employee in the Tyler Division of U.S. District Court, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:97-CV-7

- - - - - - - - - - August 15, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND DUHÉ, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
PER CURIAM: * The magistrate judge improperly granted John Wesley Banos, Texas prisoner # 545431, leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). Banos has at least three strikes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars Banos from IFP status. See Banos v. Garner , No. 96-CV-92 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 1996) (case dismissed as frivolous; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution); Banos v. Bush , No. 96-CV-219 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 1996)(case dismissed asNo. 97-40466 -2- frivolous; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution); Banos v. Shaw , No. 93-CV-45 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 1993)(case dismissed as frivolous; district court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal). Nothing in the record indicates that the exception to the statutory bar applies in this case. IT IS ORDERED that the earlier order granting leave to proceed IFP is VACATED. Banos has thirty days in which to pay the $105 filing fee. Failure to make a timely payment will result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3.1.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED IF FULL FILING FEE NOT PAID.
No. 09-647.

#### Robert W. Shimer, et al., Petitioners v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

559 U.S. 991, 130 S. Ct. 1737,

176 L. Ed. 2d 212,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2230.

March 8, 2010.

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

*213Same case below, 572 F.3d 150.
# C_2017303EN.01000101.xml

| 14.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8598 — BNPP/Starwood/Hotel Portfolio)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 303/01)

On 30 August 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8598. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8598. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
**Exhibit99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer ofDakota Growers Pasta Company, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period endedJanuary 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and thatinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 
| Date:  March 17, 2003 |                       |
|----------------------------|----------------------------|
|                       |                       |
|                       | /s/ Thomas P. Friezen      |   |
|                       |                       |
|                       | Thomas P. Friezen          |
|                       | *Chief Financial  Officer* |

 

 

----