alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. Bobby J. WILLIAMS and Sabrina Stein, Appellees.

No. 1D16-4702

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2371

JAMES FREEMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a/k/a SAIC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01502-LMB-MSN)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Christopher E. Brown, THE BROWN FIRM PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Kimberley Lunetta, Miami, Florida, Matthew J. Sharbaugh, Zachary S. 

Stinson, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2371 Doc: 22 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

James Freeman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for partial 

summary judgment and granting Defendant summary judgment on Freeman’s 

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Freeman v. Sci. Applications Int’l Corp., No. 1:19-cv-01502-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. Nov. 

24, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2371 Doc: 22 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 104534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30748]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-03-2025-0022CR; FRL 12511-01-R3]

Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for the A.I.W. Frank/
Mid-County Mustang Site, Exton, Chester County, Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(h) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
(CERCLA), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region 3, of a proposed cost recovery settlement 
agreement (Settlement) pursuant to CERCLA with U.S. Home, LLC, d/b/a 
Lennar, and B&J Excavating, Inc. (Settling Parties) relating to the 
A.I.W. Frank/Mid-County Mustang Superfund Site (Site), located in 
Exton, Chester County, Pennsylvania.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 22, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the proposed Settlement and 
submission of comments must be via electronic mail to 
[email protected]. Comments should reference the A.I.W. Frank/Mid-
County Mustang Superfund Site, Exton, Chester County, Pennsylvania, 
Index No. CERCLA-03-2025-0022CR. For those unable to communicate via 
electronic mail, please contact the EPA employee identified below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Minott, Assistant Regional 
Counsel, CERCLA Branch 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
3, 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19103. Email: 
[email protected]. Telephone: 215-814-2484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Settling Parties will pay to the EPA 
$178,818.46, plus interest on this total amount calculated from the 
date of the EPA' demand letters to the Settling Parties through the 
date of payment. The Settlement includes a covenant by the EPA not to 
sue or to take administrative action against Settling Parties pursuant 
to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), with regard to the 
EPA's past response costs as provided in the Settlement. For thirty 
(30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the EPA 
will receive written comments relating to the proposed Settlement. The 
EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its 
consent to the proposed Settlement if comments received disclose facts 
or considerations that indicate that the proposed Settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
    The EPA's response to any comments received will be available for 
public inspection by request. Please see the ADDRESSES section of this 
document for instructions.

Paul Leonard,
Director, Superfund & Emergency Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 3.
[FR Doc. 2024-30748 Filed 12-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
STATE of Louisiana v. Michael HILL

NO. 2018-KH-1597

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

December 17, 2018

Denied. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Digital Network Alliance International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Edward Chan, CEO and COO 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/Edward Chan



Edward Chan, CEO and COO

December 28, 2006
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 481 

Expressing support for the goals of Stomach Cancer Awareness Month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2023 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. CARDIN, and Mr. BRAUN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the goals of Stomach Cancer 

Awareness Month. 

Whereas stomach cancer, also known as gastric cancer, is 1 

of the most difficult cancers to detect in the early stages 

of the disease, which contributes to high mortality rates; 

Whereas stomach cancer occurs when cancer cells develop in 

the lining of the stomach; 

Whereas stomach cancer is the fifth most commonly diagnosed type of cancer worldwide; 

Whereas, in 2023, an estimated— 

(1) 26,500 cases of stomach cancer will be diagnosed 

in the United States; and 

(2) 11,130 individuals in the United States will die 

from stomach cancer; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 481 ATS 

Whereas the estimated 5-year survival rate for stomach cancer is only 35.7 percent, and the 5-year survival rate is 

just 6.6 percent when diagnosed at a late, or distant, 

stage; 

Whereas, in the United States, stomach cancer is more prevalent among racial and ethnic minorities; 

Whereas the initial diagnosis of stomach cancer is often delayed because up to 80 percent of patients are asymptomatic during early stages; 

Whereas increased awareness of, and education about, stomach cancer among patients and health care providers 

could improve timely recognition of stomach cancer symptoms; 

Whereas more research into early diagnosis, screening, and 

treatment for stomach cancer is needed; and 

Whereas November 2023 is an appropriate month to observe 

Stomach Cancer Awareness Month: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the goals of Stomach Cancer 

3 Awareness Month; 

4 (2) supports efforts to increase awareness of, 

5 and education about, stomach cancer among the 

6 general public of the United States; 

7 (3) recognizes the need for additional research 

8 into early diagnosis, screening, and treatment for 

9 stomach cancer; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 481 ATS 

1 (4) encourages States, territories, and localities 

2 of the United States to support the goals of Stom3 ach Cancer Awareness Month. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc.
(“Camelot”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Robert P. Atwell, President and Chief Executive Officer of Camelot
Entertainment Group, Inc. and a member of the Board of Directors, certify,
pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
condition and result of operations of Camelot Entertainment Group,
Inc.









May 20,
2009




/s/
Robert P. Atwell





Robert P.
Atwell


Chief
Executive Officer
STATE EX REL. Christephan M. WESLEY A/K/A Christopher Wesley v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-1002

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX, § 6.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00387

- CR

EX PARTE Franklin Jose VELASQUEZ MARTINEZ

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10369CR

Honorable Roland Andrade , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED January 11, 2023.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40168

Summary Calendar

 

LIGIA MORICE ZAVALNEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

CONSOLIDATED WITH

No. 96-40169

- - - - - - - - - -

LIGIA MORICE ZAVALNEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-cv-326

- - - - - - - - - -

December 12, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
No. 96-40168

- 2 -

* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

PER CURIAM:*

Ligia Morice Zavalney filed two motions to proceed in forma

pauperis in appeals docketed as cause No. 96-40168 and No. 96-

40169. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on

its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660

(5th Cir. 1987). Zavalney’s appeals must be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction, as they are not taken from a final or otherwise

appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292. The court

directs the clerk’s office to consolidate Zavalney’s appeals in

No. 96-40168 and No. 96-40169. See Holloway v. Walker , 800 F.2d

479, 480 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 984 (1986). The

appeals are DISMISSED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12
 
 Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, 2005RestatedEARNINGSPre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations before minority interests or income/(loss)
from equity investees
    
    $
    (6,357,660
    )Add: Fixed charges
Add: Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    Add: Distributed income of equity investees
    
    
    Add: Share of pre-tax losses of equity investees
    
    
    Less: Interest capitalized
    
    
    Less: Preference security dividend requirements of consolidated subsidiaries
    
    
    Less: Minority interest in pre-tax income of subsidiaries that have not incurred fixed charges
    
    
    (901,686
    )TOTAL EARNINGS
    
    $
    (7,259,346
    )FIXED CHARGESInterest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    2,106,240Add: Amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    1,137,682Add: Estimate of the interest within rental expense (a)
    
    
    2,703,532Add: Preference security dividend requirements of consolidated subsidiaries (pre-tax)
    
    
    TOTAL FIXED CHARGES
    
    $
    5,947,454RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERENCE DIVIDENDS
    
    
    (1.22
    )DEFICIENCY
    
    $
    13,206,800(a) Total rent expense
    
    $
    8,192,522Percentage
    
    
    33
    %Estimated interest portion of rent expense
    
    $
    2,703,532
Victor HICKS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Julie L. Jones, Respondent.

No. 1D18-4343

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 9, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13a-14
PROMULGATED UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Steven J. Haack, Principal Financial Officer of WGNB Corp., certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of WGNB Corp.;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)) for the registrant 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 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)
    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; and(c)
    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
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 financing reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):  (a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the 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 have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. Date: March 22, 2005/s/ Steven J. HaackSteven J. HaackTreasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAMIEN ZEPEDA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10131

D.C. No.

2:08-cr-01329-

ROS-1

ORDER

Filed August 20, 2013

Before: Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Richard A. Paez,

and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion in this case filed on January 18, 2013, and

reported at 705 F.3d 1052 is hereby withdrawn. The opinion

shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth

Circuit. The court will file a new opinion in due course. As

the court’s opinion is withdrawn, the government’s petition

for rehearing and rehearing en banc is moot.
Order entered November 8 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00439
- CV
IN RE MOLLY WILKERSON , Relator
O riginal Proceeding from the 366th Judicial District Cou r t

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366
- 53554
- 2020

O RDER Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia It has come to the Court’s attention that relator has been deemed a vexatious litigant and is subject to a prefiling order , but the Court does n ot have an order from the local administrative judge allowing th is original proceeding

. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § § 11.101, 11.102. Accordingly, pursuant to section 11.1035 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, this original proceed i n g is STAYED and will be dismissed without further notice unless, no later than November 1 8 , 2021 , relator obtains an order from the appropriate localadministrative judge permitting the filing of this original proceeding and files the

order with this Cour t

. See id. 11.035(b).

/ s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6150

ANDREW WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLYN LEE; DOCTOR JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-639-AM) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Coreen Antoinette Bromfield, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The district court also found Wilson’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 2001). Because we conclude Wilson’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations, we need not address the merits of Wilson’s claim. 2 PER CURIAM: Andrew L. Wilson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find the district court correctly concluded Wilson’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. * See Hardin v. Straub , 490 U.S. 536, 538 (1989); Owens v. Okure , 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989); National Advertising Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158, 1162 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm on this ground. 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
**EXHIBIT99.3**

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE AS TO COMPLIANCE**

 

 

To:  The Bank of New York, as Trustee for theTrusts

Bank One, National Association, as Indenture Trustee for the Trusts,excluding CNH Equipment Trust 2002-A

JP Morgan Chase Bank, as Indenture Trustee for CNH Equipment Trust2002-A

 

Please refer to the Sale and Servicing Agreements (the “Sale andServicing Agreements”) entered into by CNH Equipment Trust 2000-B, CNHEquipment Trust 2001-A, CNH Equipment Trust 2001-B, CNH Equipment Trust 2002-Aand CNH Equipment Trust 2002-B (collectively, the “Trusts”).

 

I, William J. McGrane, III, hereby certify that:

 

1.               I am a duly appointed and acting VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer for Case Credit Corporation, the servicer(the “Servicer”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreements.

 

2.               A review of the activities of theServicer during the preceding 12-month period (or, in the case of CNH EquipmentTrust 2002-A and CNH Equipment Trust 2002-B, from the initial cutoff date foreach such Trust to December 31, 2002) and of its performance under each of theSale and Servicing Agreements has been made under my supervision.

 

3.               To the best of my knowledge, based onsuch review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under each of theSale and Servicing Agreements throughout the applicable period.

 

To evidence the foregoing, I am executing this certificate with effectas of December 31, 2002.

 
|   | By:                                                                                                                  | /s/  WILLIAM J. McGRANE, III |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                 |
|   | **William J. McGrane, III**                                                                                          |
|   | **Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer**                                                                      |
|   | **(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and  Director and Authorized Signatory for Case Credit  Corporation)** |

 

1

----
1868.

#### Webb *v.*The State.

Hill, C. J.

1. Tlie plaintiff in error was convicted of the offense of adultery and fornication. He was a member of the church, and a committee composed of his fellow members was appointed to make an investigation of the accusation. On the trial of the accused a witness was allowed, over objection, to testify that he had heard two members of this church committee say “that from the investigation made by them they thought there was something in it.” The testimony was not offered to show any contradictory statements. *Held,*that the testimony was wholly incompetent, inadmissible, and presumptively prejudicial, *(a)*It was hearsay. (6) As original testimony offered by the members of the committee, it would have been incompetent.

2. Good character is a substantive fact in defense, and may itself alone be sufficient to generate a reasonable doubt of guilt. When the evidence warrants it, trial courts may very properly state to the jury the weight that they would be authorized to give to proof of good character, but without an appropriate written request the failure to do so will not amount to reversible error.

*354Accusation of adultery and fornication, from city court of Tifton — Judge Eve. April 10, 1909.

Argued May 18, —

Decided June 15, 1909.

*G. G. Hall, Hendricks & Christian,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. J. Wallace, solicitor,*contra.

3. While in doubtful eases proof of good character is entitled to much weight in rightly adjusting the “wavering balance” between guilt and innocence, yet a request to charge that “in doubtful cases the good reputation of the defendant will *compel*an acquittal” states the rule too strongly, and was properly rejected.

4. No error appears except that stated in the first headnote.

*Judgment reversed.*