alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clifford Anthony JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dayena CORCORAN, Warden; Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 13-6312.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: April 30, 2013.

*193Clifford Anthony Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Anthony Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10948]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-04495]


Johnson Electric Automotive, Inc. Brownsville, Texas Including 
Temporary Workers of Austin Temporary Services Employed at Johnson 
Electric Automotive, Inc. Brownsville, Texas; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 250(A), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor 
issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance on 
February 22, 2001, applicable to workers of Johnson Electric 
Automotive, Brownsville, Texas. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on April 5, 2001 (66 FR 18119).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. Information provided by 
the State and the company shows that some employees of the subject firm 
were temporary workers from Austin Temporary Services, Harlingen, Texas 
to produce shafts of motors for lawnmowers and boats at the 
Brownsville, Texas location.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending the 
certification to include temporary workers of Austin Temporary 
Services, Harlingen, Texas employed at Johnson Electric Automotive, 
Inc., Brownsville, Texas.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Johnson Electric Automotive, Inc., Brownsville, Texas 
adversely affected by a shift of production to Mexico.
    The amended notice applicable to NAFTA--04495 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Johnson Electric Automotive, Inc., Brownsville, 
Texas including temporary workers of Austin Temporary Services, 
Harlingen, Texas who were engaged in the production of shafts of 
motors for lawnmowers and boats at Johnson Electric Automotive, 
Inc., Brownsville, Texas who became totally or partially separated 
from employment on or after January 26, 2000 through February 22, 
2003 are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.


    Signed at Washington, DC this 13th day of April, 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-10948 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
\**Exhibit 31.1****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of enherent Corp., certifythat:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of enherent Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Pamela Fredette Pamela Fredette     Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President     November 13, 2006
#                                                                         Colombian Sailor Helps His Home Country During CP22                                                                    

##### by Petty Officer 2nd Class Ethan Soto

05 December 2022COLOMBIA -- 

Tags:
**Navy medicine**Colombia**Continuing Promise 2022**USNS Comfort (T-AH-20)
Exhibit 23.1 

 

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements and related prospectuses pertaining to the registration of 2,178,205 shares of common stockpursuant to the Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (Form S-8, No. 333-105623); 997,284 shares of common stock (Form S-3, No. 333-86264); 1,087,541 shares of common stock related to certain Stock Option Grants outside of a plan (FormS-8, No. 333-86268); 6,000,000 shares of common stock pursuant to the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan (Form S-8, No. 333-74076); and 5,687,318 shares of common stock pursuant to the 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan and the EmployeeStock Purchase Plan, (Form S-8, No. 333-41090), of our report dated January 26, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Newport Corporation included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2003. 

 

 

Orange County, California 

March 11, 2004
Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Clear All

        03 November 2022    

                    VFA-131 Receives Captain Michael J. Estocin Award                 
                The “Wildcats” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 131 were presented with the Captain Michael J. Estocin Award during a ceremony in the squadron’s hangar at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Nov. 3.             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6540 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract 

for the KC–X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to 

consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror 

may possess. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6540 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defense Level Playing 

3 Field Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVAN5 TAGE IN EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR KC–X 

6 AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER UNFAIR COMPETI8 TIVE ADVANTAGE.—In awarding a contract for the KC– 

9 X aerial refueling aircraft program (or any successor to 

10 that program), the Secretary of Defense shall, in evalu11 ating any offers submitted to the Department of Defense 

12 in response to a solicitation for offers for such program, 

13 consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror 

14 may possess. 

15 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after submis16 sion of offers in response to any such solicitation, the Sec17 retary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 

18 committees a report on any unfair competitive advantage 

19 that any offeror may possess. 

20 (c) REQUIREMENT TO TAKE FINDINGS INTO AC21 COUNT IN AWARD OF CONTRACT.—In awarding a contract 

22 for the KC–X aerial refueling aircraft program (or any 

23 successor to that program), the Secretary of Defense shall 

24 take into account the findings of the report submitted 

25 under subsection (b). 
3 

•HR 6540 EH

1 (d) UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.—In this sec2 tion, the term ‘‘unfair competitive advantage’’, with re3 spect to an offer for a contract, means a situation in which 

4 the cost of development, production, or manufacturing is 

5 not fully borne by the offeror for such contract. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 21, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6540 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a 

vantage that an offeror may possess. Program, to consider any unfair competitive adcontract for the KC–X Aerial Refueling Aircraft
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 13 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 13 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23

The Board of Directors
JLG Industries, Inc.
McConnellsburg, PA 17233

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-4, No. 333-99217 and No. 333-107468 and Form S-8, No.
33-60366, No. 33-61333, No. 33-75746, No. 333-71428, No. 333-71430, and No.
333-71432 of our report dated September 12, 2003, except for Note 2 as to which
the date is September 23, 2003, relating to the audited consolidated financial
statements of JLG Industries, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended July 31, 2003.


                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
October 2, 2003
#### Anthony Gargiulo, Sr., Individually and as Father and Natural Guardian of Anthony Gargiulo, Jr., an Infant, et al., Appellants, v Frank Competiello, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), entered June 1, 1988, which, after a trial on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find that dismissal of the complaint was warranted. The infant plaintiff was allegedly injured when several fertilizer bags stored in the defendant’s garage fell on him. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs *(see, Cruz v New York City Tr. Auth.,*136 AD2d 196), the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant breached his duty to maintain his property in a reasonably safe manner *(see, D’Amico v Christie,*71 NY2d 76; *Basso v Miller,*40 NY2d 233).

We find that the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2009321EN.01001201.xml

| 29.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/12

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 28 September 2007 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/38710 – Bitumen Spain (2)

Rapporteur: Latvia

Rapporteur:

2009/C 321/06

| 1. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect.

| 3. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

| 4. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the reduction of the basic amount due to attenuating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the reduction of the basic amount due to attenuating circumstances.

| 5. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the reductions of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the reductions of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice.

| 6. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 7. | The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
DOCSNY-266511v01 

Robert J. Higgins, Esq. (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen, Esq. (JC-8614) 

Kenneth H. Frenchman, Esq. (KF-3635) 

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-2714 

(212) 277-6500 

Attorneys for Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 : 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

FABIO MORALES (AND WIFE, MARTHA 

MORALES), 

 Plaintiffs, 

 - against - 

ALAN KASMAN DBA KASCO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-01667-AKH 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION 

OF ANSWER 

TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

BY MERRILL LYNCH 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill 

Lynch”), as and for its responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption 

(Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, 

hereby adopts Merrill Lynch’s Answer to Master Complaint, dated August 3, 2007, which was 

filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 

MC 102 (AKH). 

Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 8 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
2 

DOCSNY-266511v01 

WHEREFORE, Merrill Lynch demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 September 14, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

/s/ Judith R. Cohen______________________ 

Robert J. Higgins (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

Kenneth H. Frenchman (KF-3635) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 8 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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  On2  Technologies,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas
A. McIntyre,  Chairman,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant 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
      aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                /s/ Douglas A. McIntyre
                Douglas A. McIntyre
                Chairman, President and Chief
                Executive Officer
                On2 Technologies, Inc.
                May 13, 2004



                                      -24-
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RICHARD K. CANNON, a/k/a RICHARD CANNON and MERYL

CANNON , Petitioners

,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIAT I ON AS TRUSTEE AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MORTGAGE

PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERI E S 2007

- HY5 TRUST
, Respondent

.

No. 4D 15

- 436

[ June 10 , 2015 ]

Petition for writ of prohibition to Circuit Court for the Fiftee nth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Howard Harrison, Senior Judge; L.T. Case

No. 502010CA023036XXXXMB

.

Richard R. Widell of Golant and Golant, P.A., Boca Raton, for petitioners

.

Jan Timothy Williams of Lapin & Leightling, LLP, Coral Gables, for

resp ondent

.

P ER C URIAM

.

The petition for writ of prohibition seeking disqualification of the trial judge is denied.

D AMOORGIAN , C.J., and G ERBER , J., concur.

W ARNER , J., dissents with opinion.

W ARNER , J., dissenting.

I would grant the writ. Even though the motion and affidavit were based upon hearsay, the petitioners filed the required affidavits establishing the facts and circumstances as well as their fear of bias. Their attorney filed the required certificate of g ood faith. Thus, the motion was2

technically sufficient. See Barnett v. Barnett

, 727 So. 2d 311, 312 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“ Under the current rule, the motion need only be sworn to by the party signing it. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin 2.160(c) [now 2.330]

. There is no requirement that the party have personal knowledge of the facts alleged nor that the motion be accompanied by sworn affidavits of persons with such knowledge. ”)

. I also think the facts alleged were legally sufficient to require disqualificatio n. The level of animosity between the judge and the petitioners’ lawyer based upon the facts in the motion, which are not merely based upon adverse rulings, is sufficient to create an objectively reasonable fear by petitioners that the judge is so biased against their attorney as to require his disqualification. See Hayslip v. Douglas

, 400 So. 2d 553, 556

- 57 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1981).

The judge may not pass on the truth of the facts alleged in an initial motion for disqualification. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2. 330(f)

. Therefore, the judge should have entered an order of disqualification. If the facts in the motion are false, then the “ laws prohibiting perjury in judicial proceedings and rules regulating the conduct of attorneys are adequate to control any envi sioned abuse. ” Layne v. Grossman

, 430 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case 1:07-cv-04516-AKH Document 11 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04516-AKH Document 11 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01509-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20655 Summary Calendar

__________________ ELLAR PERRY SIMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus CHARLES RAY TAYLOR; HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-93-CV-2723
- - - - - - - - - - May 22, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ellar Perry Simpson has filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, for transcripts at government expense, and for appointment of counsel. Because Simpson’s proposed issues for appeal concern only the credibility of witnesses, her appeal is frivolous. See Martin v. Thomas , 973 F.2d 449, 453 n.3 (5th Cir. 1992) (anNo. 95-20655 -2- appellate court may not weigh conflicting evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses); Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). Simpson’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and her appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Simpson’s motion for transcripts at government expense and for appointment of counsel are DENIED as moot.