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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(2)
              - products_publications(6)
              - (-)multimedia_before_after(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)
              - california(4)
              - florida(1)
              - georgia(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - (-)tennessee(1)
              - texas(1)

## By Year

Before/After Image        October 15, 2021        Mississippi River Flooding: 2019 vs. 2020
EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 of Service 1st Bancorp (Nos. 333-116818 and 333-107346)
of our reports dated January 31, 2006 and March 28 2007 relating to the
financial statements of Service 1st Bancorp for the periods ended December 31,
2005 and December 31, 2006, respectively, and in the Service 1st Bancorp Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP

Pleasanton, California
March 30, 2007






                                       86
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6702

CHRISTOPHER J. MARTIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:14-cv-01425-JCC-IDD)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher J. Martin, Appellant Pro Se

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher J. Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Martin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.1

         Opinion of Former Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
VSB Bancorp, Inc.


We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial condition
of VSB Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2003
and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders'
equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2003. These consolidated financial statements are
the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with standards of the Public Accounting
Oversight Board (United States). 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, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2003
and 2002, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2003, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

As discussed in Note 20 to the 2003 consolidated financial statements, the 2003
consolidated financial statements and the financial information for the related
periods included therein, have been restated.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP
--------------------------
March 8, 2004 (February 22, 2005 as to the effects of
               the restatement discussed in Note 20)
Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 9, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132119 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

CRAIG S. BRAUN, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices and 

MARY FREE BED HOSPITAL, 

 Intervening Plaintiff, 

v SC: 132119 

 COA: 260118 
 WCAC: 03-000058 

SECURE PAK a/k/a SAME DAY DELIVERY 

and AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 10, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I respectfully dissent and would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

reinstate the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC). 

The WCAC reviews the magistrate’s decision under the “substantial evidence” standard, 

while this Court reviews the WCAC’s determination under the “any evidence” standard. 

Mudel v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich 691, 701 (2000). “‘If it appears on 

judicial appellate review that the WCAC carefully examined the record, was duly 

cognizant of the deference to be given to the decision of the magistrate, did not 

“misapprehend or grossly misapply” the substantial evidence standard, and gave an 

adequate reason grounded in the record for reversing the magistrate, the judicial tendency 

should be to deny leave to appeal . . . .’” Id. at 703 (citation omitted). Here, the WCAC 

rejected the magistrate’s decision on the basis of its conclusion that the magistrate: (1) 

failed to consider testimony by plaintiff’s coworker that after a driver clocks out at 6:00 

p.m. he’s “done”; and (2) misinterpreted testimony by defendant’s dispatcher to mean 

that “rarely would an employee receive a delivery run after 6:00 p.m.” when the 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

dispatcher actually testified that “it was rare for a delivery run to come in just prior to 6 

p.m.” The WCAC, in my judgment, fairly reviewed the magistrate’s sparse opinion and 

offered an “‘adequate reason grounded in the record for reversing the magistrate.’” Id. 

Further, the conclusion reached by the WCAC majority is supported by competent 

evidence in the record. Accordingly, under Mudel, the Court of Appeals should have 

denied leave to appeal in this case. Just as this Court in its decisions overwhelmingly 

defers to the WCAC, so must the Court of Appeals. 

CORRIGAN, J., joins the statement of MARKMAN, J. 

t0206 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 9, 2007 

 Clerk
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_education(15)
              - science_science(23)
              - products_publications(13)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_audio(55)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(54)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(112)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(102)
              - multimedia_image-141776(9)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(91)
              - multimedia_video-149194(8)
              - multimedia_video-149195(47)
              - multimedia_video-149196(11)
              - multimedia_video-149197(22)
              - multimedia_video-149198(1)
              - documents_file(70)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149222(63)
              - news_news-149245(5)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - news_other_news(28)
              - (-)connect_locations(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(2)
              - other_basic-42(6)

## By Location

              - colorado(1)
              - (-)south dakota(1)

## By Year

              - 2023(1)

location  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center
Exhibit 31.1
Wachovia Asset Securitization Issuance, LLC
(formerly Wachovia Asset Securitization, Inc.),
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-HE1
I, Bridget Nelson, a Senior Vice President in the Treasury Department of
Wachovia Bank, National Association (the Bank), which on March 20, 2010 merged into Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (WFBNA), a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company, certify that:
1.

I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K, and all monthly current reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report of the Wachovia Asset Securitization 2003-HE1 Trust;
2.

Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;
3.

Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the Indenture Trustee by the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;
4.

I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under the Servicing Agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Servicing Agreement; and
5.

The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the Servicer's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure as set forth in the Servicing Agreement, that is included in these reports.
In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: US Bank Corporate Trust Services.
Date: March 31, 2010
/s/Bridget Nelson



Name: Bridget Nelson Title:   Senior Vice President (senior officer in charge of the servicing
function)
|   | (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. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |   |                         |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                 |   |                         |   |
| August      14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Ren      Hu    |   |
|                 |   | Ren      Hu                  |   |
|                 |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|                 |   |                         |   |
STATE EX REL. Travis ISAAC v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1448

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 20, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF POINTE COUPEE**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow *985circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GLENN SHARICE BOLDEN, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 64 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of July, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Date of report (Date of earliest event reported) October 31, 2005
 PLASTIPAK HOLDINGS, INC.
  Michigan
    
    333-73552
    
    52-2186087(State or other
    
    (Commission File
    
    (IRS Employerjurisdiction of
    
    Number)
    
    Identification No.)incorporation)
  
   
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 2.01. Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets.Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.EXHIBIT INDEXShare Purchase Agreement, dated October 3, 2005    Table of Contents  
 Item 2.01. Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets.
       
  
 Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (a)
    
    Financial Statements of the Business Acquired. Financial statements for the business
acquired as described in Item 2.01 above will be filed by amendment to this report within 71
days of the filing hereof; provided that Plastipaks obligations to file reports with the
Commission under the indenture governing its 10.75% Senior Notes have not been suspended prior
to such time.(b)
    
    Pro Forma Financial Information. Pro forma financial information reflecting the effect of
the business acquired as described in Item 2.01 above will be filed by amendment to this
report within 71 days of the filing hereof; provided that Plastipaks obligations to file




---



##### Table of Contents



reports with the Commission under the indenture governing its 10.75% Senior Notes have not
been suspended prior to such time.(d)
    
    Exhibits. The following Exhibit is filed herewith as part of this report:
 2.1
    
    Share Purchase Agreement dated October 3/4, 2005 regarding the sale and purchase of the
entire stated capital of LuxPET A.G/S.A. Schedules and Exhibits to this agreement have not
been filed because they do not contain information material to an investment decision which is
not otherwise disclosed in this Report or in the Share Purchase Agreement, but Plastipak will
provide supplementally a copy of any Schedule or Exhibit to the Commission upon its request.




---



##### Table of Contents



Plastipak Holdings, Inc.Dated: November 4, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Michael J. PlotzkeMichael J. PlotzkeTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer




---



##### Table of Contents



2.1
    
    Share Purchase Agreement dated October 3/4, 2005 regarding the sale and purchase of the
entire stated capital of LuxPET A.G/S.A. Schedules and Exhibits to this agreement have not
been filed because they do not contain information material to an investment decision which is
not otherwise disclosed in this Report or in the Share Purchase Agreement, but Plastipak will
provide supplementally a copy of any Schedule or Exhibit to the Commission upon its request.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Trump Casino Holdings, L.L.C. and Trump Casino Funding, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Burke, the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Companies 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 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 Companies.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                         
|/s/ JOHN P. BURKE                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                                         
|John P. Burke Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Trump Casino Holdings, L.L.C.; and Trump Casino Funding, Inc.  March 30, 2004
J.A., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2462

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 18, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 1 7 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk April 1 7 , 2019

15 9 196 ( 86 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 159 196

v COA: 33 8311

Macomb CC: 2016

- 000810

- FC

MICHAEL ZARAN

- IKIEL GARRETT

, Defendant

- Appellant

.

_________ ______________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellant to file a pro per

supplement to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED

. The pro per supplement

submitted on February 28 , 2019 , is accepted for filing

.
Josias PLEASANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2648

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Deneal O. BROWN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. SC16-1031

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 15, 2018

Dane K. Chase of Chase Law Florida, P.A., St. Petersburg, Florida, for Petitioner

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Suzanne Beschard, Bureau Chief, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Respondent

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in *Brown v. State* , 197 So.3d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), on the grounds of express and direct conflict with *Griffin v. State* , 160 So.3d 63 (Fla. 2015), *Stinson v. State* , 69 So.3d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), and *Ward v. State* , 12 So.3d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). *See* art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Having considered the Second District's opinion and the briefs of the parties, upon further review, we have determined that we should exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss review.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and LEWIS, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.