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

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 22, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 7733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12639]

Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Monstrous Beauty: A Feminist 
Revision of Chinoiserie'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Monstrous Beauty: A Feminist 
Revision of Chinoiserie'' at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 
New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their 
temporary exhibition or display within the United States as 
aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 
2021.

Nicole L. Elkon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2025-01452 Filed 1-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
EX PARTE Alvin H. DANIELS

CR-16-1240

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 1, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0004. CHRISTINE T. STONE v. BANK OF NEWYORK MELLON, f/k/a

BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE.

Christine T. Stone filed an application for discretionary appeal in this Court

in which she challenged a writ of possession issued by the trial court on July 8, 2015. 

We dismissed the application as moot, noting that we affirmed the judgment of the

trial court in Stone’s case in an unpublished opinion. See Case No. A15D0502,

dismissed July 29, 2015, citing Stone v. Bank of New York Mellon, Case No.

A11A0314 (decided March 8, 2011). Christine T. Stone filed this application for

discretionary review in the Supreme Court, challenging the same order. The Supreme

Court transferred the application to this Court for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons

set forth in our prior order, this application for discretionary appeal must be

DISMISSED.

“It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum.” 

(Punctuation omitted.) Nally v. Bartow County Grand Jurors, 280 Ga. 790, 791 (3)

(633 SE2d 337) (2006). In attempting to litigate the same issue multiple times, Stone

has filed an application that has no basis in law and is thus frivolous. This Court is

empowered to impose sanctions upon a party who files a frivolous application for

discretionary appeal. See Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b). We caution Stone against

filing future motions or pleadings in this Court that have no substantial basis in law

as such may result in the imposition of sanctions.

September 15, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

09/15/2015
Case 2:05-cr-00061-J Document 86 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 314
Case 3:00-cv-02273-X Document 7 Filed 02/07/01 Page 1 of 3 PageID 10
Case 3:00-cv-02273-X Document 7 Filed 02/07/01 Page 2 of 3 PageID 11
Case 3:00-cv-02273-X Document 7 Filed 02/07/01 Page 3 of 3 PageID 12
Case 3:05-cv-00653-B Document 4 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 20
EXHIBIT 31.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Michael Schumacher, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pride, 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. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are 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 us 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 our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
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
which 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; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and 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:  March 15, 2007


/s/ Michael Schumacher
----------------------------------------------
Michael Schumacher
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 January 5, 2017

t1212

Order 

Clerk

January 5, 2017

154100

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154100

COA: 321583 

Wayne CC: 13-000967-FC

CLARENCE SAMUEL HUNTER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 26, 2016 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 99 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 99

     To implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the 
 Constitution of the United States for the right to life of each born 
                       and preborn human person.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 2021

    Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Daines, Mr. Thune, Mr. Rounds, Mrs. 
Blackburn, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Risch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Braun, 
 Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the 
 Constitution of the United States for the right to life of each born 
                       and preborn human person.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Life at Conception Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.

    To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born 
and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of 
Congress, including Congress' power under section 8 of article I of the 
Constitution of the United States to make necessary and proper laws, 
and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the 
Constitution, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life 
guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing 
in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman 
for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro 
fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another 
means of preventing fertilization.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Human person; human being.--The terms ``human person'' 
        and ``human being'' include each member of the species homo 
        sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of 
        fertilization or cloning, or other moment at which an 
        individual member of the human species comes into being.
            (2) State.--For purposes of applying the 14th Amendment to 
        the Constitution of the United States and other applicable 
        provisions of the Constitution to carry out section 2, the term 
        ``State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
        of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the 
        United States.
                                 <all>
```
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 19, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-15414

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 05-00477-CR-CC-5-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERGIO BEJARANO,

a.k.a. Sergio,

a.k.a. Inginero,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(June 19, 2009)

Before BLACK, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

Mary Erickson, appointed counsel for Sergio Bejarano in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the
appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bejarano’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED. Bejarano’s motion for appointment of counsel on

appeal is DENIED AS MOOT.

2
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 Annual Report of Digital Network Alliance International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Terence Yap Wing Khai, President, CEO, and a director 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/Terence Yap Wing Khai



Terence Yap Wing Khai, President, CEO and

 a director

April 15, 2005
Daniel Brian MASSON, DOC #T95854, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4021

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 23, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  R ONALD B. K ILLETTE ; N ORTH S TATE M USIC ; R ONALD B. K ILLETTE , III; S UNC OAST M USIC ; K ARENF AITH K ILLETTE , Plaintiffs,

v. D RIVE -I NM USIC C OMPANY , No. 01-1543



#  I NCOPORATED , Intervenor/PlaintiffAppellant, and E. W AYNEP ITTMAN ,

Defendant-Appellee. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-91-8) Argued: April 4, 2002 Decided: April 29, 2002 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS

and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.COUNSEL ARGUED: R. Jeffrey Kelleher, LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN HYMAN, North Hollywood, California, for Appellant. Ira George Greenberg, EDWARDS & ANGELL, L.L.P., New York, New York, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Allen Hyman, LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN HYMAN, North Hollywood, California, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION PER CURIAM: Drive-In Music Company, Inc. appeals from the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to E. Wayne Pittman pursuant to 17 U.S.C.A. § 505 (West 1996), the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting provision. The district court awarded Pittman a total of $277,980 in attorneys’ fees.* Drive-In contends that the district court erred in various respects in determining the amount of the fee award. Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant legal authority, we conclude that the district court correctly resolved the issues before it. See Drive-In Music Co. v. Killette , No. 3:91-0008 (D.S.C. Mar. 19, 2001) (order granting attorneys’ fees for work performed by Pittman’s lead counsel); DriveIn Music Co. v. Killette , No. 3:91-0008 (D.S.C. Mar. 19, 2001) (order *The facts of the underlying litigation are reproduced in this court’s prior opinions in this case. See Drive-In Music Co. v. Killette , Nos. 98- 2666, 98-2724, 2000 WL 432365 (4th Cir. April 20, 2000) (unpublished) (affirming the district court’s disposition of the merits and holding thatthe district court possessed discretion to grant Pittman an award of attorneys’ fees); Killette v. Pittman , No. 96-1827, 1997 WL 657005 (4th Cir. October 22, 1997) (unpublished) (holding that settlement agreement between two of the parties was binding and reversing a judgment against Pittman on a slander-of-title claim). 2 K ILLETTEv. D RIVE -I N M USIC C O
.granting attorneys’ fees for work performed by Pittman’s local counsel). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
AFFIRMED

3 K ILLETTEv. D RIVE -I N M USIC C O
.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY PAGE 1 OF 2

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

In re:

CARL GERARD DORVIL,

Debtor.

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 23-30771-sgj7

Chapter 7

ORDER GRANTING 

RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY

CAME ON for consideration the Emergency Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay

[Dkt. 48] (the “Debtor’s Motion”) filed by Carl Gerard Dorvil (the “Debtor”), the debtor in the 

above-referenced case, and the Motion of Charles and Kathleen Mason to Enforce the Automatic 

Stay and for Related Relief [Dkt. 47] (the “Masons’ Motion”). The Court finds that both the 

Debtor’s Motion and the Masons’ Motion were properly served pursuant to the Federal and Local 

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and that good cause exists for the entry of the following order.

Signed September 19, 2023

______________________________________________________________________

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 58 Filed 09/19/23 Entered 09/19/23 13:00:11 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY PAGE 2 OF 2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Debtor’s Motion is granted and the Masons’ 

Motion is granted in part as provided herein; and it is further

ORDERED that the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362 is modified as set forth 

herein so that the Debtor and the Masons may proceed in the State Court Action1to prosecute or 

defend against any post-judgment rights and an appeal of the Judgment, if necessary; and it is 

further

ORDERED that the fourteen (14) day stay required under Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a)(3) is 

hereby waived; and it is further

ORDERED that the Court retains jurisdiction to interpret and enforce this Order and to enter 

further orders as necessary.

# # # END OF ORDER # # #

Submitted by:

Melissa S. Hayward

 Texas Bar No. 24044908

 MHayward@HaywardFirm.com

HAYWARD PLLC

10501 N. Central Expy, Ste. 106

Dallas, Texas 75231

Tel./Fax: (972) 755-7100

Special Counsel for the Debtor

1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Motion.

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 58 Filed 09/19/23 Entered 09/19/23 13:00:11 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-39292) pertaining to the Jupiter Media Metrix, Inc. Amended and
Restated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan and the Jupiter Media Metrix, Inc. Amended
and Restated 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Post-Effective Amendment No.
1 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 Registration Statement (No. 333-42316) pertaining to
the Jupiter Communications, Inc. 1997 Employee Stock Option Plan and the Jupiter
Communications, Inc. 1999 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated February 7,
2001 (except for Note 16 as to which the date is February 26, 2002), with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Jupiter Media
Metrix, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended
December 31, 2000, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                                   /s/Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
February 26, 2001
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.a.3    
    


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT  


Xcelera
Inc.

P.O. Box 309

Ugland House, South Church Street

Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, British West Indies 


        We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-12398 and No. 333-101797 on Form S-8 of our report dated July 2, 2003,
relating to Xcelera, Inc.'s consolidated financial statements as of January 31, 2003 and for the year then ended, appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F of Xcelera Inc.
for the year ended January 31, 2003. 


/s/  BDO SEIDMAN, LLP      


BDO
Seidman, LLP

New York, New York 


July
31, 2003 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.a.3
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 47 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 1 of 5

GW Equity LLC et al v. PBS Global Inc et al Doc. 47

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 47 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 47 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 47 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 47 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 5 of 5
Michael SAMUELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3723

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BOBBY RAY CRAIN,

Petitioner,

VS.

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:04-CV-2205-G

)

) ECF

)

)

)

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court finds that

the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct,

and they are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the court.

SO ORDERED.

July 13, 2006.

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02205-G Document 22 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 112
Case 3:05-cv-00953-B Document 9 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 28