alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### H. B. CLAFLIN CO. v. COURTNEY, Sheriff.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

June 15, 1894.)

Action by the H. B. Claflin Company against John Courtney, sheriff, etc.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00515-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF W.T.H., A CHILD

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-06-00217-CVK

Honorable Russell H. Wilson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 5, 2016

DISMISSED

Kevin1 appeals the trial court’s bill of review setting aside a prior judgment of the court. 

The trial court signed the order setting aside its prior judgment on October 27, 2015. On August 

5, 2016, Kevin filed a notice of appeal. We ordered Kevin to file a response by September 19, 

2016, showing why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction and advised him 

the appeal would be dismissed if he failed to satisfactorily respond within the time provided. Kevin 

did not file a response. We therefore dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).

PER CURIAM

 1 To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the child’s parent by his first name and to the child by the 

child’s initials. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9(a)(3).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          92,575
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,575
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       105,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,575
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,425
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12,425)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12,425)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.003)



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Lynn W., Respondent, v Guy C., Appellant.

— In a custody proceeding between the natural parents of a three-year-old child, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Ludmerer, J.), entered September 30, 1986, which awarded custody of the child to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The test applicable in a custody proceeding between the natural parents of a child born out of wedlock is the best interests of the child *(Fontaine v Smielak,*92 AD2d 880, *appeals dismissed*59 NY2d 761, 60 NY2d 963). Among the factors to be considered is the quality of the home environment *(Matter of Ebert v Ebert,*38 NY2d 700, 702), the need for stability in a child’s life *(Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 94), and the relative fitness of the respective parents *(Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, supra,*at 94; *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 172). "The weighing of these various factors requires an evaluation of the testimony, character and sincerity of all the parties involved in this type of dispute. Generally, such an evaluation can best be made by the trial court which has direct access to the parties and can supplement that information with whatever professionally prepared reports are necessary” *(Eschbach v Eschbach, supra,*at 173). In matters of this character, "the findings of the nisi prius court must be accorded the greatest respect” *(Matter of Irene O.,*38 NY2d 776, 777; *Matter of Ebert v Ebert, supra,*at 703). Upon a review of the instant record, the trial court’s conclusion that custody with the mother would serve the best interests of the child is not contrary to the weight of the evidence *(cf., Freiman v Freiman,*99 AD2d 765). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF OIL STATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND RULE 13a  14(b) UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Cindy B. TaylorName: Cindy B. TaylorDate: February 22, 2010
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT WORKING 

LEGALLY IN THE UNITED STATES

You are likely eligible to apply for an employment authorization document (EAD) to legally work in the 

U.S. if:

 you were recently paroled into the U.S. through the parole processes for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, 

Nicaragua, and Venezuela, or after receiving a CBP One App appointment and presenting at a Port 

of Entry; or

 you have applied for asylum by filing Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of 

Removal, and your asylum application has been pending for at least 150 days. 

If you have not already started the EAD application process, you can begin by creating a U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (USCIS) account online and filing Form-I-765, Application for Employment 

Authorization. USCIS will mail your EAD to the address you provided in your EAD application if your 

Form I-765 is approved application is approved. 

CREATE AN ACCOUNT AND FILE ONLINE 

Submitting your EAD application online provides helpful instructions and tips from USCIS as you 

complete your form using the secure online filing system. The system also helps you avoid common 

mistakes, such as leaving critical parts of the application blank or forgetting to sign your name, check 

case status, and upload evidence. Be sure to review our How to Create a USCIS Online Account video 

for more information. Filing an application online is easier than you think. If necessary, you can file a 

paper application for Form I-765 instead of filing online.

FILING FEES

For those individuals with a pending Form I-589, there is no fee to file your Form I-765 if but you may not 

file until 150 days after you submit your asylum application.

For those individuals paroled into the U.S., there is a $410 filing fee. You may apply for a fee waiver.
APPLICATION DETAILS

Items you will need to provide as evidence for your Form I-765 include: 

 Either a copy of your stamped Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record (front and back), a printout of 

your electronic Form I-94, a copy of your passport, or other travel document; 

 A copy of your last EAD (if applicable); 

 If you were not previously issued an EAD, a copy of a government-issued identity document; and

 Form G-28 (if you are represented by an attorney or accredited representative). 

If you need to retrieve a copy your Form I-94, you may do so online by visiting U.S. Customs and Border 

Patrol’s I-94 webpage. 

If you apply for an EAD, USCIS will notify you of the decision in writing. If your application is approved, 

we will either mail your EAD to you or we may require you to visit your local USCIS office to pick it up. 

If your address has changed, you must update it. You may do so through your USCIS online account if 

you filed your form online or through the appropriate option listed in our Change of Address page.
#### WHITE ROCK LIME & CEMENT CO. v. DICK.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

June 20, 1894.)

Appeal—Review—Weight op Evidence.

A verdict rendered on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by the White Bock Lime & Cement Company against Robert Dick. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before FITZSIMONS, NEWBURGER, and CONLAN, JJ.

Charles A. Flammer, for appellant.

Kurzman & Frankenheimer, for respondent.

NEWBURGER, J.

.This action is brought to recover for goods •sold and delivered. The answer is a general denial. It appears that the defendant, a builder, erected eight buildings on the south side of Ninetieth street, between Ninth and Tenth avenues, in this city. Plaintiff claims that the goods sold and delivered were used in the plastering work of the said building. Defendant concedes that the goods were used on the buildings, but claims that the credit was given to one Burke, with whom the defendant had a •contract to do the plastering. There was a conflict between plaintiff’s and defendant’s witnesses, and therefore it was the duty of the trial justice to submit the question to the jury. That the judge’s charge was a proper and fair one is apparent, as the appellant has failed to print the same or call our attention to any exception thereto. The case fails to disclose any errors on the trial. The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs. All •concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 5, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130292 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130292 

 COA: 265733 

Oakland CC: 2004-198894-FC 

MACK WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2005 

order 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. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons stated in her dissenting 

statement in People v Conway (Docket No. 129431), ___ Mich ___ (2006). 

d0424 

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

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

May 5, 2006 

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10114]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of an Expiring 
Information Collection: OPM-1386B

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of an expiring 
information collection. OPM-1386B, Applicant Race and National Origin 
Questionnaire, is used to gather information concerning the race and 
national origin of applicants for employment under the Outstanding 
Scholar provision of the Luevano Consent Decree, 93 F.R.D. 68 (1981).
    Approximately 100,000 OPM-1386B forms are completed annually. Each 
form takes approximately 8 minutes to complete. The annual estimated 
burden is 13,333 hours.
    Comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the 
Office of Personnel Management and whether it will have practical 
utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection 
of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and 
methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use 
of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, or e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acc1ced8c3c3c1c9d5ecc3dcc182cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c414e5843434149556c435c41024b435a">[email protected]</span></a>

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before June 
25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Suzy M. Barker, Director, 
Staffing Policy Division, Employment Service, U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 6500, Washington, DC 20415.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Steven R. Cohen,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 01-10114 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 98-1375

JIMMIE HARVEY, JR., APPELLANT,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY and IVERS, Judges.

O R D E R

On September 19, 2000, the Court issued an opinion affirming the June 15, 1998, Board of

Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision that denied the appellant's application for Service Disabled

Veterans' Insurance on the grounds that he failed to meet the basic criteria for entitlement to such

benefits. On November 15, 2000, following the enactment of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act

of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000), the Court automatically

recalled judgment as to the September 19, 2000, decision. See In Re: Veterans Claims Assistance

Act of 2000, U.S. Vet. App. Misc. Order No. 4-00 (Nov. 13, 2000) (en banc). On December 4, 2001,

the Court withdrew its September 19, 2000, opinion, vacated the June 15, 1998, Board decision, and

remanded the matter for readjudication in light of the VCAA.

The appellant subsequently filed, through counsel, an application for an award of attorney

fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The

Secretary filed a response. On July 1, 2002, the appellant filed a motion to stay proceedings pending

a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) on cases that

had been consolidated for consideration by the Federal Circuit. The cases include

Vaughn v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 277, 279 (2001) (per curiam order), appeal docketed, No. 02-7019

(Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2001); Sumner v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 256, 264-65 (2001) (en banc), appeal

docketed, No. 02-7169 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2002); and Thayer v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 204, 211

(2001), appeal docketed, No. 02-7012 (Fed.Cir. Nov. 29, 2001). The Court will deny the appellant's

stay motion because the Court's decisions in Vaughn, Sumner, and Thayer, unless or until they are

overturned, are binding on this Court. See Tobler v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 8, 14 (1991). The EAJA

application satisfies the jurisdictional and content requirements. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). 

In this case, the appellant's claim was remanded solely in light of the VCAA's enactment.

Because the remand thus was not predicated upon administrative error, the appellant is not a

prevailing party under the merits theory. See Vaughn, supra; Sumner, supra. Moreover, the catalyst

and inevitable-victory tests are not viable means to attain prevailing-party status. See Vaughn, supra;
2

Thayer, supra. Accordingly, the appellant cannot be considered a prevailing party for EAJA

purposes. 

On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the appellant's motion to stay proceedings is denied. It is further

ORDERED that the appellant's EAJA application is DENIED. 

DATED: September 13, 2002 PER CURIAM.
Exhibit
4.5


 





 


April 13, 2010


 


Consent of Louis-Pierre Gignac, Eng.


Board of Directors, Osisko Mining Corporation


United States Securities and Exchange Commission


 


To the Board of Directors of Osisko Mining
Corporation


 


I, Louis-Pierre Gignac, Eng., of G Mining Services
Inc., consent to:


 


1.             The incorporation by
reference in the Offer and Circular of Osisko Mining Corporation (the “Company”),
included as part of the Company’s Registration Statement on Form F-8 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, of the description of the
reports titled “Feasibility Study — Canadian Malartic Project (Malartic,
Quebec)” dated December, 2008 and “Updated resource and reserve estimates for
the  — Canadian Malartic Project
(Malartic, Quebec)” dated March 22, 2010.


 


2.             The information that forms
the summary of the reports of the description of project and to the use of my
name under the Offer and Circular and Registration Statement as a named expert.


 


	
  Dated
  as of the 13th day of April, 2010

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  SIGNED

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Louis-Pierre Gignac, Eng.

  	
   

  
	
  Louis-Pierre
  Gignac
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 Nutra Pharma Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K  for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rik J. Deitsch, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/ Rik J. DeitschRik J. DeitschChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 31, 2011





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 18.1








Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

















To the Board of Directors and Stockholders


nFinanSe Inc.


Tampa, Florida





We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.





We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of nFinanSe, Inc., and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of January 1, 2011 and January 2, 2010, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for the fiscal years ended January 1, 2011 and January 2, 2010 and have reported thereon under date of March 24, 2011.  The aforementioned consolidated financial statements and our audit report thereon are included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the years ended January 1, 2011 and January 2, 2010. As stated in Note C to those financial statements, the Company is no longer reporting as a development stage company and has modified its presentation and treatment of card supply from an inventory asset to a prepaid asset.  In addition, the Company will follow accounting literature for gross revenue reporting.  The Company states that the newly adopted accounting principles are preferable under the circumstances because these accounting principles are used by the Company’s largest competitors.  In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with company officials the circumstances, business judgment and planning upon which the decision to make these changes was based.





With regard to the aforementioned accounting changes, it should be understood that authoritative criteria has not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method.  However, for purposes of nFinanSe, Inc. and subsidiary’s compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.





Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management’s business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted methods of accounting are preferable in the Company’s circumstances.





Very truly yours,











Baumann, Raymondo & Company PA


Tampa, Florida
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10359]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552(b)(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: May 21, 2001.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 
20815.
    Contact Person Tracy A. Shanan, Phd, Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIH/NIAMS, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-4952.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: April 20, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-10359 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M