alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Damian Gilmartin, Respondent, v Lisa Abbas, Appellant.

[877 NYS2d 347]—

a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated January 23, 2008, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to modify a prior custody order of the same court dated July 2, 2004, awarding her sole custody of the parties’ child, and awarded him sole custody of the subject child.

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

Custody determinations depend to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties *(see Matter of Brian S. v Stephanie P.,*34 AD3d 685, 686 [2006]; *Matter of James v Hickey,*6 AD3d 536, 537 [2004]). A determination of custody should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]). A court, in considering questions of child custody, must determine what is in the best interests of the child *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]).

The hearing court may order a change in custody if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification in the best interests of the child *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]; *Matter of Brian S. v Stephanie P.,*34 AD3d 685, 686 [2006]). The Family Court’s determination that the best interests of the child would be served by a change of custody to the father is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]; *Matter of Timosa v Chase,*21 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Certified Public Accounts

Suite 400

200 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131 2310

Ph: (305) 372 3100

Fax: (305) 372 3160

www.us.deloitte.com

Deloitte

& Touche

 

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS REPORT

 

To the Board of Director of

Lennar Partners, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion about Lennar Partners, Inc.s (the "Company") compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas*Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* (USAP) as applicable to the special servicing of commercial and multifamily mortgage loans as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 included in the accompanying management assertion.  Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the entitys compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute oHf       Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the minimum servicing standards.
In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material        respects.

 
***Deloitte & Touche LLP

February 15, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deloitte

Touche

Tohmatsu

 ***
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7317

PAUL LEWIS RICHARDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RICKIE HARRISON, Warden, Kershaw Correctional

Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney

General, State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-2329-3)

Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Lewis Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Lewis Richards, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of

the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court

from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state

court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a

district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural

grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the

petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the

denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.

2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 122 S.Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and

conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Richards

has not made the requisite showing. See Richards v. Harrison, No.

CA-01-2329-3 (D.S.C. June 14, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7892

BRUCE W. KOENIG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND 

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; GARY MAYNARD, Secretary; MARYLAND 

DIVISION OF CORRECTION; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; 

BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; LIEUTENANT ELLSWORTH, Supervisor; 

INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE; SCOTT OAKLEY,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS; THOMAS DEWBERRY, Chief 

Administrative Law Judge; JEROME WOODS, II, Administrative 

Law Judge,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:12-cv-01087-JFM)

Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Bruce Wayne Koenig, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Wayne Koenig appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint because 

he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required under 

42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) (2006), and denying his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Koenig v. Maryland, No. 1:12-cv-01087-

JFM (D. Md. Aug. 6, 2013; Oct. 25, 2013). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Pamela Mitchell, as Executrix of Sarah Fincher, Deceased, Respondent, v Erie County Medical Center Corporation, Appellant.

Submitted April 5, 2010;

decided May 11, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-19-00097-CV 

________________________

ADRIAN RENE HARPER, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

KEN FOLEY, RIC VOGELGESANG, GARY D. WINTERS, 

AND JON CALDWELL, APPELLEES 

 

On Appeal from the 47th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 106,479-A; Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding 

 

April 10, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Adrian Rene Harper, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a notice of 

appeal from the trial court’s order denying a motion for summary judgment. We dismiss 

the appeal because Harper failed to pay the filing fee or comply with chapter 14 of the 

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
2

By letter of March 20, 2019, this court directed Harper to pay the required filing fee

of $205 or, in lieu thereof, to comply with chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and 

Remedies Code by filing an affidavit of indigence, an affidavit relating to previous filings, 

and a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. §§ 14.002(a), 14.004 (West 2017). We further advised that if Appellant did 

not comply by April 1, this appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice. To date,

Harper has neither paid the filing fee nor filed the required chapter 14 documents.

Unless a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the clerk of this court is required 

to collect filing fees set by statute or the Supreme Court when an item is presented for 

filing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b). An inmate who files an affidavit or unsworn 

declaration of inability to pay costs in an appeal or original proceeding must also comply 

with chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 14.002(a). An inmate’s failure to comply with chapter 14 is grounds 

for dismissal of the appeal or original proceeding. See Douglas v. Moffett, 418 S.W.3d 

336, 340 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). Because Harper has failed to

pay the filing fee or comply with chapter 14 within the time provided by this court for 

compliance, we must dismiss his appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Per Curiam
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,706
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,715
<PP&E>                                          16,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 308,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,994
<BONDS>                                        198,258
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   308,062
<SALES>                                        162,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,139
<CGS>                                           96,384
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,058
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,850
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,339
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                     755
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,266
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Ivan Acevedo HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-72930.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.*

Filed Sept. 26, 2013.

Ivan Acevedo Hernandez, CA, pro se.

Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ivan Acevedo Hernandez, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Acevedo Hernandez fails to raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determinations that he is removable, that he does not qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief, and that he was afforded a full and fair hearing. *See Rizk v. Holder,*629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Acevedo Hernandez’s contention that he is eligible for cancellation of removal, because he failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (‘We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

Finally, our review is limited to the administrative record and thus we do not consider materials included with Acevedo *756Hernandez’s opening brief that were not available to the agency. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**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 Titan Machinery Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Mark P. Kalvoda, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Date: June 9, 2011

 

 
|   |   | /s/   Mark P. Kalvoda     |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   | Mark   P. Kalvoda         |
|   |   | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32(b)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Zep Inc. (the Corporation) for the quarter ended November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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
Corporation.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark R. Bachmann                                
|Mark R. Bachmann                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|January 9, 2009                                     

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


Exhibit 10.6







R. Michael Stunden

2490 W. 2nd Ave., Suite 404

Vancouver, BC, Canada V6K 1J6

604-7356-5777

mstunden@shaw.ca







September 7, 2005




Project Romania Inc. 

2490 W. 2nd Ave., Suite 404

Vancouver, BC, Canada V6K 1J6




To Whom It May Concern:




I refer to my financing commitment letter dated April 20, 2005, wherein I agree to advance and loan up to USD 50,000 to Project Romania Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on an as needed basis and as requested, to finance the business operations and expenses of the Company and its operating subsidiary Galaxy Telnet SRL, a Romanian company (“Galaxy Telnet”), during the twelve-month period ending April 19, 200 6
.. I hereby agree to advance and loan up to a further USD 25,000 to the Company, on an as needed basis and as requested, to finance the business operations and expenses of the Company and its operating subsidiary Galaxy Telnet, for the approximately five-month period extending from April 20, 2006 to September 19, 2006. 










/s/ R. Michael Stunden




R. MICHAEL STUNDEN
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference to our firm under the caption Experts in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-151761) of Pluristem Therapeutics Inc. of our report dated
September 24, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Pluristem Therapeutics Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
June 30, 2008.

| | /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererKost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------
| | A member of Ernst & Young Global                            

Haifa, Israel
September 24, 2008



---

---
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, Fred Zolla, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IMedicor, Inc;





2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 the end of the period (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 small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.





6. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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.





IMedicor, Inc.

(Registrant)Date: May 23, 2011
By:
/s/ Fred ZollaFred ZollaPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
32.2
            CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350.




I, Chet
Gutowsky, the Chief Financial Officer of Southfield Energy Corporation, hereby
certify that to my knowledge, Southfield Energy Corporation’s quarterly report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-Q and the
financial statements contained therein fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of Southfield
Energy Corporation.




Date:
November 15, 2010




/s/
      Chet GutowskyChet
      Gutowsky