alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 6626** 

DENNIS GALLIPEAU ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

LINDA MICKENS

- HAM ,
Defendant

– Appellee ,
and

JANE DOE; LEXINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; OFFICER MACK ,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv
- 01883

- TMC )

Submitted : August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dennis Gallipeau , Appellant Pro Se. Justin Tyler Bagwell , DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Dennis Gallipeau appeals the district court ’ s order
denying relief on his motion to reconsider a prior order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Gallipeau v. Mickens

- Ham , No. 3:09

- cv
- 01883

- TMC (D.S.C. Apr. 9,

2014). We deny Gallipeau ’s motion to place this case in
abeyance , and his motion to consolidate, and we dispense with
oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before th is court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32**

ORIENT-EXPRESS HOTELS LTD.

Section 1350 Certification

Theundersigned hereby certify that this report of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. forthe periods presented fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information containedin this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periodspresented in the report.

| /s/  Simon M.C.  Sherwood |   | /s/  Paul  M. White |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
| Simon M.C.  Sherwood                |   | Paul M. White                 |
| President and                       |   | Vice President -  Finance and |
| Chief Executive  Officer            |   | Chief Financial  Officer      |

 

Dated:  March 1, 2007

[A signed original of this written certification hasbeen provided to Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. and will be retained byOrient-Express Hotels Ltd. and furnished to the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.]

1

----
DENIED and Opinion Filed July 17, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00439-CV IN RE COLUMBIA HOSPITAL AT MEDICAL CITY DALLAS SUBSIDIARY, L.P. D/B/A MEDICAL CITY DALLAS HOSPITAL, Relator Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-18552 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel In its May 10, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus, relator seeks relief from part of a trial court order compelli ng it to answer an interrogatory. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires re lator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that rela tor lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petiti on and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrat e entitlement to ma ndamus relief.–2– Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a).

230439F.P05 /Emil y Miskel / EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE
##### 



/s/ Paul F. WalshPaul F. WalshChief Executive Officer and Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ George W. GreshamGeorge W. GreshamChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EX PARTE Julius REEVES

CR-16-0750

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
Alfonso S. BROWN, DOC #C08231, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1062

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert Alan COSTELLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1072

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Irwin HICKS, Jr., Appellant, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5091

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Darken ROBINSON

NO. 2018-KK-2008

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(6)
              - (-)colorado(1)
              - minnesota(1)

## By Year

              - (-)2022(1)

staff profileMichelle Guy
SECURITIES
      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON,
      D.C. 20549










FORM
      10-KSB/A





x
      Annual Report Pursuant
      to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange


Act of 1934





For
      the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2006





o
      Transition Report
      Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities


Exchange
      Act of 1934





For
      the
      transition period from _______________ to _______________.




Commission
      File No. 333-45210





SYSTEMS
      MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC.


(Name
      of
      Small Business Issuer in Its Charter)





Nevada
              88-0460457(State
                  or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
              (IRS
                  Employer Identification No.)4703
                  Shavano Oak, Suite 104San
                  Antonio, Texas
              78249(Address
                  of Principal Executive Offices)
              (Zip
                  Code)


Issuer's
      telephone number, including area code: (210) 541-9100








Securities
      registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None





Securities
      registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:


Common
      Stock, $0.0001 par value and Preferred Stock, $0.0001 par value





Check
      whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13
      or
      15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter
      period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has
      been
      subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.





x
      Yes o No





Check
      if
      disclosure of delinquent filers in response to Item 405 of Regulation S-B is
      not
      contained in this form, and no disclosure will be contained, to the best of
      registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information
      statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-KSB or any
      amendment to this Form 10-KSB. o





The
      issuer's total revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 were
      $3,621,242





As
      of
      March 22, 2007, there were 20,690,386 outstanding shares of the issuer's common
      stock, par value $.0001 per share ("Common Stock"), which is the only class
      of
      common stock of the issuer. As of March 22, 2007, the aggregate market value
      of
      the shares of Common Stock, held by non-affiliates of the
      issuer, based on the closing bid price of the Common Stock as quoted on the
      OTC
      Bulletin Board, was approximately $1,055,967





Documents
      Incorporated by Reference  None.





Transitional
      Small Business Disclosure Format: Yes o No x
# C_2020443EN.01000302.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2020 — Stadtapotheke E

(Case C-378/20)

(2020/C 443/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Stadtapotheke E

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land

Other party to the proceedings: AW

Questions referred

| 1. | Are rules of national law that oblige a court, when taking expert evidence as required in a procedure for the award of a licence, to obtain an expert’s report from an occupational self-governing organisation whose decision-making bodies are in fact dominated mostly by members of an occupational group whose interests tend to conflict with those of the occupational group to which the applicant for the licence belongs, or — in the event that such rules are contrary to EU law — from an official expert employed by a public authority, compatible with the appearance of impartiality of that court required by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are rules of national law that oblige a court, when taking expert evidence as required in a procedure for the award of a licence, to obtain an expert’s report from an occupational self-governing organisation whose decision-making bodies are in fact dominated mostly by members of an occupational group whose interests tend to conflict with those of the occupational group to which the applicant for the licence belongs, or — in the event that such rules are contrary to EU law — from an official expert employed by a public authority, compatible with the appearance of impartiality of that court required by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| 2. | Does a rule of national law that sets a projected guaranteed potential customer base — specifically at 5 500 people — which de facto cannot be verified by the courts, comply with the requirements of Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter in so far as, pursuant to those provisions, interference with such a guarantee is permissible only if the principle of proportionality is complied with? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does a rule of national law that sets a projected guaranteed potential customer base — specifically at 5 500 people — which de facto cannot be verified by the courts, comply with the requirements of Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter in so far as, pursuant to those provisions, interference with such a guarantee is permissible only if the principle of proportionality is complied with?

---
# C_2021217EN.01004301.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sanolie (SANOLIE)

(Case T-175/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SANOLIE - Earlier national word mark SANODIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 217/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sanolie (Istanbul, Turkey)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2020 (Case R 2405/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Sanolie.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.

---
Approved by: AFS-200 

SAFO 

 Safety Alert for Operators 

U.S. Department SAFO 05001 

of Transportation DATE: 10/25/05 

Federal Aviation

Administration Flight Standards Service 

Washington, DC 

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo

A SAFO contains important safety information and may include recommended action. SAFO content should be 

especially valuable to air carriers in meeting their statutory duty to provide service with the highest possible degree 

of safety in the public interest. 

Subject: Introducing SAFOs. 

Background: FAA Order 8000.87, Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFOs), dated 

August 29, 2005, established the authority for the SAFO process and described some of the 

features of the process. The purpose of Order 8000.87 compares to that of the ACOB order (Air 

Carrier Operations Bulletins), extinct since about 1994. The SAFO process re-establishes a 

communication channel between Flight Standards and operators. This channel permits a policymaking division such as AFS-200 to convey important safety information concurrently to FAA 

field offices and to operators in a timely manner, without undue delays caused by coordination 

among government offices. SAFOs frequently contain recommended action to be accomplished 

by operators. 

Discussion: A SAFO does not burden FAA inspectors or operators with requirements. Instead, 

a SAFO exploits the power of electronic mail and the Internet to share important safety 

information broadly and quickly. Besides helping air carriers in meeting their statutory safety 

obligation, SAFOs should be valuable to many visitors to the FAA’s public Web site in 

promoting their own aviation safety performance and, hence, their business interests.

Recommended Action: Besides FAA inspectors, air carrier certificate holders - particularly 

directors of safety (DOS) and directors of operations (DO) - fractional ownership program 

managers, and training center managers should know of the SAFO process and should pay 

particular attention to any SAFO bearing directly on their operations. Operators should consider 

immediate implementation of any applicable action recommended in a SAFO. 

The FAA strives to notify the appropriate contact person for each operator affected by a new 

SAFO. However, DOS, DO, fractional ownership program managers, training center managers, 

and any other person involved in operations of transport category airplanes should make a habit 

of regular visits to the SAFO Web site.
GT MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a Davinci's Portrait and Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton, Inc., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. MANATEE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0272

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Logan JACKSON

NO. 2018-KH-2028

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.
Michael Wade BARFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2330

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 30, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1142 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-926, K2025-927.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31118 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Calvin MASSEY v. STATE

CR-16-0475

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017 Reh. denied September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Izayiah Armstrong, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J. at plea; Lyle E. Frank, at replea and sentencing), rendered March 16, 2017, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J. at plea; Lyle E. Frank, at replea and sentencing), rendered March 16, 2017, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant argues that his guilty plea to the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally defective as to such charge. Significantly, however, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the entire accusatory instrument, an instrument alleging that a police officer observed defendant "run out from behind a building," "chasing an unknown male" while "holding a knife" that measured "approximately seven inches." Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by remanding the matter to Criminal Court for further proceedings on the remaining misdemeanor offenses charged therein, including second-degree reckless endangerment (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 120.20) and a second count of fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 265.01[2]]) (<i>see People v Allen</i>, 39 NY2d 916, 918 [1976]), dismissal is not warranted and therefore we affirm on this basis (<i>see People v Conceicao </i>26 NY3d 375, 385 n 1 [2015]; <a href="../2016/2016_03598.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Teron</i>, 139 AD3d 450</a> [2016]). In any event, we also find that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered his negotiated plea of guilty with the assistance of counsel, in exchange for a very favorable disposition.</p><p>We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 17, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

I, Ken La Honta, certify that: 

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Design Within Reach, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying 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 ensurethat 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 theeffectiveness 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 anannual 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 financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor 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 controlover financial reporting. 

Date: May 16, 2006
# C_2020201EN.01001401.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 27 February 2020 — HR v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

(Case C-108/20)

(2020/C 201/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HR

Defendant: Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

Question referred

Are Articles 167 and 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as precluding the application of national law under which input tax deductions are not to be allowed where, when turnover tax fraud about which a taxable person knew or should have known was committed at a preceding stage, the taxable person, through the transaction carried out with him or her, did not participate in and was not connected to the turnover tax fraud and did not encourage or facilitate the turnover tax fraud committed?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---