alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHAVEZ, et al. v. CARMICHAEL

437PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Sean F. Perrin, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Carmichael, Irwin (Sheriff).

Sejal Zota, Attorney at Law, for Chavez, Carlos, et al.

Erez Reuveni, Attorney at Law, for United States.

Joshua S. Press, Attorney at Law, for United States.

W. Rob Heroy, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Chavez, Carlos, et al.

Gill P. Beck, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for United States.

Deborah Weissman, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Law Scholars and National Immigrant Justice Center.

Raul A. Pinto, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Justice Center.

Irena Como, Attorney at Law, for ACLU, et al.

Cody Wofsy, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for ACLU, et al.

Daniel Galindo, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for ACLU, et al.

Omar Jadwat, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for ACLU, et al.

Spencer Amdur, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for ACLU, et al.

Katrina Braun, Attorney at Law, for ACLU, et al.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of July 2019 by Amicus (United State of America) to Participate at Oral Argument:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
No. 09-1135.

#### Harold Brian Krieg, Petitioner v. Kent J. Dawson, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, et al.

559 U.S. 1093, 130 S. Ct. 2388,

176 L. Ed. 2d 769,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3615,

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, the undersigned  officer of The Bank of New
York Mellon Trust  Company,  N.A., as Trustee on behalf of Government  Trust 1-D
(the  "Trust"),  hereby  certifies,  to his  knowledge,  that the Trust's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2008 (the  "Report")  fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Trust.


/s/ Lawrence M. Kusch
------------------------

Name:   Lawrence M. Kusch
Title:  Assistant Vice President

March 30, 2009
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement No. 333-97481, No. 33-52722, and No. 33-92818 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 23, 2007 relating to the financial statements of Tomkins plc (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includesan explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of the recognition and disclosure provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 158 “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other PostretirementPlans”) and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Tomkins plc for the year ended December 30, 2006. 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

London, England 

May 10, 2007
STATE v. Brian Keith HUGHES

169P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2019

Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, for Hughes, Brian Keith.

Yvonne B. Ricci, Assistant Attorney General, Greg Newman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of May 2019 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2019."
Exhibit
      23.1


CONSENT
        OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
 
 
 I
        hereby
        consent to the use, in the Form 10-QSB Quarterly Reports, of Artfest
        International, Inc. for
        the
        periods ended June 30, 2007, and 2006, and subsequent references in later
        reports, of my
        report
        dated August 9, 2007 for the periods ended and as at June 30, 2007 and 2006, relating
        to the financial statements, and notes, of Artfest International, Inc. which
        appear in said quarterly
        reports or are referenced in subsequent reports of said company.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
        Thomas Bauman, C.P.A.
 Huntington
        Station, New York
 August
        9,
        2007
#### Maggie Anderson, *Alias*Maggie Chapman, *Appellant,*v. Richard D. Anderson, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed February 29, 1928.

*1. L. Purcell,*for Appellant;

*John W. Dodge,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment, to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE,

Respondent

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE LABOR 

COMMITTEE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2017-2060, 2017-2062, 2017-2063, 2017-2064

______________________ 

Petitions for review of decisions of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance in Nos. 16-LM-03 (NG), 

16-LM-04 (NG), 16-LM-05 (NG), 16-LM-06 (NG).

______________________ 

Decided: November 6, 2018

______________________ 

FREDERICK M. HERRERA, Office of Employment Counsel, United States Capitol Police, Washington, DC, argued 

for petitioner. Also represented by RAFIQUE OMAR 

ANDERSON, KELLY MARISSA SCINDIAN. 

 JOHN D. UELMEN, Office of the General Counsel, 
US CAPITOL POLICE v. OOC 2

United States Office of Compliance, Washington, DC, 

argued for respondent. Also represented by JULIA AKINS 

CLARK. 

 MEGAN KATHLEEN MECHAK, Woodley & McGillivary 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor. 

 ______________________ 

Before DYK, LINN, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

The petitions for review are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this court. See U.S. Capitol Police v. Office of 

Compliance, Nos. 2017-2061, 2018-1504, slip op. at 8–12

(Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2018).

No costs.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit10.1**

 

#### **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

 

I, David J. Gallagher,President and Chief Executive Officer of QSound Labs, Inc., do hereby certifythat, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the information contained in the Annual Reporton Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 of QSound Labs, Inc. andfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Act of 1934 and theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations on QSound Labs, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ David J. Gallagher                                            |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                              |
|   | David J. Gallagher                                                |
|   | President, Chief  Executive Officer and   Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                                              |
|   | May 20, 2003                                                      |

 

----
No. 09-9258.

#### Kendrick Omar Hammond, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1043, 130 S. Ct. 2078,

176 L. Ed. 2d 426,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2887.

March 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 353 Fed. Appx. 877.
Order entered March 29, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01278-CV

DENNIS JAMES POLEDORE, JR., Appellant

V.

CHERI YOLANDA DANIEL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-10565

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 27, 2019 motion requesting to supplement his brief 

with a corrected page eighteen that shows his signature. Page eighteen of the brief filed on 

March 22, 2019 reflects appellant’s signature. Accordingly, we DENY as moot appellant’s 

motion.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50359

Summary Calendar

 

GILBERT RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CV-598

- - - - - - - - - -

December 23, 1997

Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gilbert Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment

affirming the denial of his application for supplemental security

income. He argues that substantial evidence did not exist to

support the finding that he was not disabled. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the

judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the
No. 

-2-

district court. See Rodriguez v. Chater, No. A-95-CA-598 JN

(W.D. Tex. April 28, 1997).

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 09, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 09, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0231. THE CITY OF WINTERVILLE v. TALBOT CONSTRUCTION, INC..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

14C04350
Exhibit 31.1


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kevin Halter Jr., certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB/A of Rub A Dub Soap,
Inc.

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

4. I am responsible for  establishing  and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
procedures  (as  defined  in  Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14)  for the
registrant and have:

         a.  Designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c.  Presented  in  this  quarterly  report  my  conclusions  about  the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date.

5. I have disclosed,  based on my most recent  evaluation,  to the  registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's  board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

         a. All significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  that  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b. Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls.

6. I have  indicated in this  quarterly  report  whether there were  significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal  controls  subsequent  to the  date  of  our  most  recent  evaluation,
including any  corrective  actions with regard to significant  deficiencies  and
material weaknesses.


Date:  November 13, 2006             /s/ Kevin Halter, Jr.
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Kevin Halter, Jr., President,
                                    Treasurer and Director (Principal
                                    Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
Jonathan E. BRUNSON, Plaintiff, v. The OFFICE OF the GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Defendants.

No. COA18-836

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 16, 2019

AFFIRMED.
#### Joanne Motichka, Respondent-Appellant, v Hiram Cody, M.D., Appellant-Respondent.

[720 NYS2d 9]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 13, 1999, which, after a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor, denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as to liability but granted his motion to the extent of directing a new trial as to damages unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction of the jury’s $2,250,000 pain and suffering award to $850,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verdict, finding defendant doctor liable for failing to obtain plaintiff’s informed consent to the modified radical mastectomy he performed on her, was supported by sufficient evidence and was not contrary to the weight of the evidence adduced at trial *(see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 498-499). The evidence, viewed as it must be on appeal, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the prevailing party at trial *(see, Campbell v City of Elmira,*84 NY2d 505, 509), sufficiently and fairly established that defendant misinterpreted the report of the biopsy taken from plaintiff and thereupon misadvised her respecting the extent of her breast malignancy. The evi*311dence further established that plaintiff, in reliance upon defendant’s inaccurate representation of her condition, elected to undergo a modified radical mastectomy when her condition did not necessitate such drastic treatment and indeed rendered other considerably less invasive alternate treatments, i.e., a lumpectomy, medically viable. There was ample evidence to establish that a reasonably prudent person in plaintiffs position would not have undergone a mastectomy had she been accurately apprised of her condition and of the less invasive, medically sound alternative treatments for that condition *(see, Osorio v Brauner,*242 AD2d 511, *lv denied*91 NY2d 813; *see also, King v Jordan,*265 AD2d 619).

The motion court’s decision to direct a new trial as to damages unless plaintiff stipulated to accept a reduced pain and suffering award in the amount of $850,000 was proper; a pain and suffering award in that reduced amount would not, in contrast to the jury’s award, deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances *(see, King v Jordan, supra).*

We have considered defendant’s remaining argument respecting purportedly newly discovered evidence and find it unavailing. The assertedly new evidence is merely cumulative of evidence presented at trial reflecting on plaintiffs credibility and, as such, affords no ground for directing a new trial *(see, Teichner v W & J Holsteins,*161 AD2d 454, *lv dismissed*77 NY2d 873; *Mully v Drayn,*51 AD2d 660). Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER99-2923-005]

Take notice that on February 13, 2009, Phelps Dodge Energy Services, LLC filed a compliance filing to revise its Market-based Rate Tariff, pursuant to Order No. 697.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 6, 2009.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E9-5217 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Print	

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ODNI News Release No. 31-23

December 13, 2023

 

#### DNI Haines Statement on the Confirmation of Harry Coker, Jr.,as National Cyber Director

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Director of National Intelligence Avril D. Haines today issued the following statement:

 

“On behalf of the entire Intelligence Community (IC), I wish to congratulate Harry Coker, Jr., on his confirmation as our nation's second National Cyber Director — we are very lucky to have him in this role. Harry is a great leader and a distinguished IC alumnus, having served in senior roles at the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. His confirmation comes at a critical time as cyber is woven into so many aspects of our national security, and his expertise, coupled with his stellar reputation for collaboration and problem-solving, are just what we need. Congratulations, Harry!"

 

###
Exhibit 32.1

URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.
405 State Highway 121 Bypass, Building A,, Suite 110, Lewisville, TX 75067
972.219.3330 Phone 972.219.3311 Fax
www.uraniumresources.com

March 17,
2008

Securities
and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

I, David N. Clark, Chief Executive Officer of Uranium Resources, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



|/s/DAVID N. CLARKDavid N. Clark Chief Executive
OfficerMarch 17, 2008 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT


To the Board of Directors
First Sterling Banks, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Kennesaw, Georgia

            We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
FIRST STERLING BANKS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES as of December 31, 1999 and 1998,
and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1999.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
on our audits. We did not audit the financial statements for Georgia Bancshares,
Inc. which statements reflect total assets of $82,572,113 as of December 31,
1998 and net interest income of $3,541,715 and $2,940,320 for the years ended
December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively. Those statements were audited by other
auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it
relates to data included for Georgia Bancshares, Inc., is based solely on the
report of other auditors.

            We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

            In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to
above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of First
Sterling Banks, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the
results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 1999, in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.

                                                      /s/ MAULDIN & JENKINS, LLC

Atlanta, Georgia
January 27, 2000
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Dean GADDY, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA18-621

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 16, 2019

NO ERROR.