alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 03-1996

BOBBY R. JONES, APPELLANT,

V.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KASOLD, HAGEL, and MOORMAN, Judges.

O R D E R

On November 10, 2003, the Court received an untimely filed Notice of Appeal from the

appellant. On May 20, 2004, the appellant, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration or,

in the alternative, for a panel decision regarding a May 14, 2004, nondispositive single-judge order

that directed the appellant to submit to the Court evidence, consistent with the "generalized

standards" outlined in Barrett v. Principi, 363 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2004), that during the 120-day

judicial-appeal period he had a mental illness of sufficient severity to warrant equitable tolling based

on mental incapacity. On November 19, 2004, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration and

ordered the appellant to submit any evidence of entitlement to equitable tolling on the grounds of

mental incapacity. The appellant appealed the Court's order to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). On December 14, 2005, the Federal Circuit dismissed the

appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Jones v. Nicholson, 431 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

On March 10, 2006, the Court ordered the appellant, within 30 days after the date of that

order, to file his response to the Court's November 2004 order. On April 13, 2006, the Court denied

the appellant's motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of Barrett v. Principi, No. 02-2382,

2004 WL 1660393 (Vet. App. July 16, 2004), appeal docketed, No. 05-7113 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 28,

2005). On April 28, 2006, the Court received a letter from the appellant, dated April 26, 2006,

stating that he had nothing further to offer. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 
2

ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED: June 9, 2006 PER CURIAM.

Copies to:

Mark R. Lippman, Esq.

VA General Counsel (027)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leo Paul R. Bergeron, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We have reviewed defendant’s claims of error and we find them to be without merit.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion under CPL 60.42 (5) by refusing to receive evidence of the victim’s sexual conduct with persons other than defendant *(see,*CPL 60.42). This evidence was offered by defendant to impeach the victim’s testimony that she loved her husband and that her relationship with him was "fine”. We agree with the trial court that it was sufficient for impeachment purposes to receive evidence that she said she was sick of her husband and wanted to leave him to live with another.

The motions pursuant to CPL 330.30 and 440.10 for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence were properly denied because, as held by the trial court, the matters relied upon by defendant were within defendant’s knowledge before trial. Moreover, defendant did not show that with this evidence there was a probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to him *(see,*CPL 330.30 [3]). Although the claimed newly discovered evidence would show that defendant was elsewhere on the morning of the day the rape took place, the precise time of the attack was not essential to the People’s case and defendant admitted that he was alone with the victim on the afternoon of that day.

The court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that it "could consider the failure of the complainant to make a timely disclosure of the alleged acts.” Contrary to this request, the testimony showed that the victim did disclose these acts to her husband at the first opportunity. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, J. — rape, first degree.) Present — Dillon P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.
Exhibit 10.23

Agreement and Release

         This Agreement and Release ("Release") is entered into by and between
Anis Jessa ("Consultant") and E-City Software, Inc., a Nevada corporation
("E-City"), dated October 16, 2003.

         Whereas the Consultant and E-City entered into that certain Consulting
         Agreement dated May 23, 2003 ("Agreement");
         And Whereas, the tax liability of Consultant referred to in the
         agreement was higher than the parties anticipated;
         And Whereas, Consultant desires that E-City pay all payroll and other
         taxes for which Consultant is liable, even extending beyond the amounts
         called for in the Agreement;
         And Whereas, Consultant was to exchange free-trading shares of stock
         for a greater number of options to purchase stock under the Agreement,
         but neither party wishes to proceed with this aspect of the
         transaction;

         BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT;

          1. Tax Liability  Paid. The Consultant  acknowledges  that any and all
     tax  liability  referred  to in the  Agreement  has  been  fully  paid  and
     satisfied  by  E-City  and  that  E-City's  obligations  in the  Agreement,
     including but not limited to the granting of options, are hereby rescinded.

          2. Return of Shares. E-City agrees to immediately return to Consultant
     the 2,149,000 shares of common stock which the Consultant originally had.

          3.  Consultant did not actually  provide any services to E-City and is
     released from any obligation to do so.

          4. The  parties  release  each  other  from each and every  obligation
     contained in the Agreement,  except for sections 13, and 17-22, which shall
     still remain in full force and effect.

          5. Mutual Release. Other that as enumerated in this Agreement,  E-City
     and  Consultant,  on  behalf  of  their  officers,  directors,   employees,
     shareholders,   successors,   assigns,  service  providers  hereby  forever
     release, discharge,  cancel and waive any claim, right, entitlement,  cause
     of  action  that  they may  have  against  each  other,  including  against
     officers, directors, employees, shareholders,  successors, assigns, service
     providers of each other. Such a release is without limitation. Both parties
     specifically  waive any  provision  under  Nevada  or other  law  regarding
     presently  unknown claims and waives and discharges  permanently any claim,
     whether  known  or  unknown  except  in the case of  material  fraud in the
     inducement of the Agreement.

         Agreed to and acknowledged this 16th day of October, 2003 by

         E-City Software, Inc.

         /s/ William C. Robinson
         ---------------------------
         William C. Robinson, CEO

         Anis Jessa, an individual

         /s/ Anis Jessa
         ----------------------------
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                                VERTICALNET, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
          RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

I, Gene S. Godick, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Verticalnet, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify
that:

     (1)  The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
          31, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                            /s/ Gene S. Godick
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                            Gene S. Godick
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                            Date: May 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Verticalnet, Inc. and will be retained by Verticalnet, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket OST-99-6150]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

# ACTION:

Notice of order to show cause (Order 2000-4-7).

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Smokey Bay Air, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and awarding it a certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail using no more than three aircraft with no more than nine passengers seats each.

# DATES:

Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than April 27, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

Objections and answers to objections should be filed in the Docket OST-99-6150 and addressed to the Department of Transportation Dockets, US Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mrs. Kathy Lusby Cooperstein, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-2337.

      ( print page 20508)    
Dated: April 10, 2000.

Robert S. Goldner,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 00-9403 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
#### FRENCH, Respondent, v. WESTERN NEW YORK & P. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

March 27, 1894.)

Action by Thomas O. French against the Western New York & Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

Argued before DWIGHT, P. J., and LEWIS, HAIGHT, and BRADLEY, JJ.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal *to*the court of appeals 25 N. Y. Supp. 229.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5785 

To direct the Mine Safety and Health Administration to provide to mine 

operators for distribution to miners wallet cards and similar devices 

containing the phone number of the Administration’s national hazard 

reporting phone number. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 2010 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To direct the Mine Safety and Health Administration to 

provide to mine operators for distribution to miners wallet cards and similar devices containing the phone number of the Administration’s national hazard reporting 

phone number. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mine Worker Safety 

5 Hotline Accessibility Act’’. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5785 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL HAZARD REPORTING 

2 HOTLINE PHONE NUMBER. 

3 Title I of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act 

4 of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 811 et seq.) is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 117. NATIONAL HAZARD REPORTING HOTLINE. 

7 ‘‘The Secretary shall provide to all operators plastic 

8 wallet cards, refrigerator magnets, and other similar de9 vices, containing the toll-free telephone number and appro10 priate Internet website address of the national hazard re11 porting hotline established by the Secretary. Each oper12 ator shall ensure that each miner employed at each mine 

13 of the operator receives such cards, magnets, or other de14 vices and shall make available such cards, magnets, or 

15 other devices to all miner communities in order to facili16 tate the reporting mine accidents, incidents, injuries, ill17 nesses, possible violations of this Act or of mandatory 

18 health or safety standards or plans, or other mine safety 

19 and health concerns.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
Cite as 2015 Ark. 452



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-15-916 MICHAEL TODD APPELLANT V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered December 3, 2015 MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL

MOTION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM Appellant Michael Todd, by and through his attorney, Anthony S. Biddle, has filed a motion for belated appeal. On June 26, 2014, the Hempstead County Circuit Court revoked Appellant Michael Todd’s suspended imposition of sentences. On July 22, 2014, Todd filed his notice of appeal. On June 3, 2015, the Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed Todd’s appeal, holding that despite Todd’s notice of appeal being timely filed, his notice of appeal was ineffective to confer appellate jurisdiction. See Todd v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 356, 465 S.W.3d 435. Specifically, the court of appeals held that the language of Todd’s notice of appeal did not fairly and accurately inform the court of the order(s) being appealed from as required by Rule 2(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Criminal, the appellate court to which Todd was appealing, or whether the order(s) resulted from a bench hearing rather than a jury trial. Id . at 5, 465 S.W.3d at 438. In the present motion for belated appeal, Mr. Biddle admits that it was his obligation to file an appropriate notice appeal. We have clarified our treatment of motions for rule onCite as 2015 Ark. 452

clerk and motions for belated appeals in McDonald v. State , 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). There, we stated that there are only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely perfected: either the party or the attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is “good reason.” Id . at 115, 146 S.W.3d at 891. We explained: Where an appeal is not timely perfected, either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is good reason that the appeal was not timely perfected. The party or attorney filing the appeal is therefore faced with two options. First, where the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, fault should be admitted by affidavit filed with the motion or in the motion itself. There is no advantage in declining to admit fault where fault exists. Second, where the party or attorney believes that there is good reason the appeal was not perfected, the case for good reason can be made in the motion, and this court will decide if good reason is present. Id ., 146 S.W.3d at 891 (footnote omitted). While this court no longer requires an affidavit admitting fault before we will consider the motion, an attorney should candidly admit fault where he has erred and is responsible for the failure to perfect the appeal. See id. In accordance with McDonald, Mr. Biddle has candidly admitted fault. Therefore, the motion is granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. Motion granted.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001043894
<NAME>                        ENVIRO VORAXIAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     232,000
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              45,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (24,000)
<INVENTORY>                                119,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           372,000
<PP&E>                                     1,430,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (421,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,388,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      419,000
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                6,000
<COMMON>                                   7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 455,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,388,000
<SALES>                                    192,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           192,000
<CGS>                                      78,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              416,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (302,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (302,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (302,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.04)




</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-12256) and Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-81300) of InfoVista of our report dated July 27, 2004, except for note 20 as to which the date is September 27, 2004, relating to InfoVista's
financial statements, which appears in InfoVista's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2004.

Paris,
France

September
29, 2004

PricewaterhouseCoopers
Audit

Jean-François
Châtel
Partner

---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 18-0248

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JORY RUSSELL STRIZICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is 

given an extension of time until October 19, 2020 to prepare, file and serve the 

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 18 2020

09/18/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0248
# Genealogy Notebook

Welcome to the Genealogy Notebook!

This tool is a place for the USCIS Genealogy Program to share answers to commonly asked Genealogy research and record questions, research tips, and provide updates. Do you have a genealogy research question you would like to see answered in the Genealogy Notebook? Send us your question.
                - Why Some C-Files May Lack a Declaration of Intention  	USCIS Genealogy records requesters sometimes discover that their subject's Certificate File ("C-File") does not contain a Declaration of Intention record. The Declarations are not missing. Rather, these C-Files...
                - Immigrant Name Changes  	We know from experience that records of entry of many immigrants into the United States contain assumed or incorrect names and other errors...  
                - Immigrant Name Change - Letters  	Read some letters from immigrants explaining their name changes and an essay about immigrants' tendency to change their names...  
                - Researching Deportation Records  	The USCIS Genealogy mailbox regularly receives questions about locating historical deportation or exclusion records. The question usually follows...
                - Quick Guide to finding INS Case and Correspondence Files Related to Specific Individuals  	The vast collection of historical Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) subject, policy and correspondence files now stored as Entry 9 of Record Group 85 at the U.S. National Archives in Washington, D.C. includes...  
                - Why Request a USCIS C-File?  	A researcher sent the USCIS Genealogy Notebook a very important question..  
                - Where do I find a C-File number?  	Certificate numbers can be found in a variety of documents in the public domain.

02/25/2021

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
##### 



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 Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Patrick G. Blanchard,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James M. Thomas, Chief Financial Officer,
do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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. By:/s/ Patrick G. BlanchardPatrick G. BlanchardPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 12 , 2005/s/James M. ThomasJames M. ThomasChief Financial OfficerMay 12, 2005