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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1067

DAVID J. RICE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSOCIATION, d/b/a Jackson

General Hospital,

Party in Interest,

versus

ROSE & ATKINSON, Attorneys at Law, a

partnership; MARK A. ATKINSON, Esquire;

HERSCHEL H. ROSE, III, Esquire; ANDREW L.

PATERNOSTRO, Esquire; JOHN J. POLAK, Esquire;

MARTIN R. SMITH, JR., Esquire,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,

Chief District Judge. (CA-00-943)

Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

David J. Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. Crislip, Jill M.

Obenchain, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

David J. Rice appeals the district court’s order granting

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing Rice’s legal

malpractice claim. We affirm.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting

summary judgment and views the facts in the light most favorable to

the nonmoving party. Kubicko v. Ogden Logistics Servs., 181 F.3d

544, 551 (4th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate when no

genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Once the moving party discharges its burden by showing the absence

of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case, the nonmoving

party must come forward with specific facts showing a genuine issue

for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986);

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

586-87 (1986). Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence

presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48

(1986).

With these standards in mind, we affirm the district court’s

order dismissing Rice’s legal malpractice claim on the reasoning of

its memorandum opinion. See Rice v. Rose & Atkinson, 176 F. Supp.

2d 585 (S.D.W. Va. 2001). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
4

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Penal Fines Officer

Executive Board

Supervisory Counsil

General Counsel Compliance & Integrity

Internal Audit

Legal Affairs

Strategy, Policy & 

International Affairs

Communications

Supervision Relationship 

Management

Supervision Service Centre

Risk Analysis & 

Project Management Office

Treating Customers Fairly

Pensions & AIFM

Audit & Reporting Quality 

Efficient Capital Markets 

Supervision

Market Integrity & 

Enforcement

Facility Management IT

Human Talent & 

Organisation Development Planning, Control & Finance

Information Management

Organisation Structure AFM

As of 15 October 2015
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CARSON FILLMORE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-997

[July 2, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 98-2188CF10A.

Carson Fillmore, Crestview, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kat Gold Holdings Corp. (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), each of the undersigned, Kenneth Stead, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant and Matthew Sullivan, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:

1.

The Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.

This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.

 

| Date:

August 8, 2012

By:

/s/ Kenneth Stead

 

 

 

Name: Kenneth Stead

 

 

 

Title: Chief Executive Officer

 

Date:

August 8, 2012

By:

s/ Matthew Sullivan

 

 

 

Name: Matthew Sullivan

 

 

 

Title: Chief Financial Officer |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 23.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-3  (No.  333-114529)  and the  Registration  Statements  on Form S-8 (No.
333-112934 and No. 333-30829) of Global Payment Technologies, Inc. of our report
dated October  1,2004,  with respect to our audit of the June 30, 2004 financial
statements of Global Payment Technologies Pty Ltd included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2004.


Pitcher Partners


Sydney, Australia
November 29, 2004
S07Y0204.

#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES GLENN McELROY.

(637 SE2d 705)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on Respondent James Glenn McElroy’s Petition for Voluntary Surrender of License, which is tantamount to disbarment pursuant to Bar Rule 4-110 (f). In his petition, McElroy admits that while he was a partner in a law firm, an employee that he had direct supervisory authority over solicited non-lawyer prospective clients for McElroy by telephone and through direct personal contact, and that he knew of the employee’s conduct at a time when the consequences of that conduct could have been avoided or mitigated, but that he failed to take remedial action. McElroy further admits that by his conduct, he violated Rule 5.3 (c) (2), a part of Bar Rule 4-102 (d) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 5.3 (c) (2) is disbarment. The State Bar and the special master recommend that this Court accept McElroy’s petition.

*318Decided November 20, 2006.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jonathan W. Hewett, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Rogers & Hardin, Robert B. Remar,*for McElroy.

The Court has reviewed the record and agrees with the State Bar and the special master that McElroy’s Petition for Voluntary Surrender of License should be accepted for his admitted violation of Rule 5.3 (c) (2). Accordingly, McElroy’s Petition for Voluntary Surrender of License hereby is accepted. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Federal Register: January 29, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 19)]
[Notices]
[Page 8100]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ja01-15]


[[Page 8100]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 9, 2001.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-2590 Filed 1-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX ========**

----
No. 279.

#### Tarrer *v.*United States.

October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. Charles Beach Edwards*and *Allen W. Post*for petitioner.

No appearance for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and motion for leave to proceed further *in forma pauperis*denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

February 4, 2015

h0128 

# Order

Clerk February 4, 2015

149041 & (96)

CHARLES MOODY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

GET WELL MEDICAL TRANSPORT,

PROGRESSIVE REHAB CENTER and

CAROL REINTS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v SC: 149041

COA: 301784

Wayne CC: 10

- 006722

- AV

HOME OWNERS INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to dismiss appeal is GRANTED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MicroChannel Technologies Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2010 (the “Report”), I, David Gamache, 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. 

 

** **

Date:  April 8, 2010                                                     /s/ David Gamache

                                                                                        David Gamache

                                                                                        Chief Financial Officer

 

 

----
Exhibit 10.3
    (1 of 5)
             Form 20-F Rules 4-10(a) Regulation S-X




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.3
    (2 of 5)
      Petróleos Mexicanos
       Form 20-F Rules 4-10(a) Regulation S-X
    GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.3
    (3 of 5)
      Petróleos Mexicanos
       Form 20-F Rules 4-10(a) Regulation S-X
    GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.3
    (4 of 5)
      Petróleos Mexicanos
       Form 20-F Rules 4-10(a) Regulation S-X
    GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.3
    (5 of 5)
      Petróleos Mexicanos
       Form 20-F Rules 4-10(a) Regulation S-X
    GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Exhibit (j)(1)

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 129 to Registration Statement No. 002-90649 on Form N-1A of our reports dated December 12, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of Fidelity International Small CapFund and Fidelity International Small Cap Opportunities Fund, of our reports dated December13, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of Fidelity Total International Equity Fund, of our reports dated December 15, 2011, relating to the financial statementsand financial highlights of Fidelity International Value Fund, Fidelity Emerging Europe, MiddleEast, Africa (EMEA) Fund, Fidelity Series Emerging Markets Fund, Fidelity Series InternationalValue Fund, Fidelity Series International Small Cap Fund, Fidelity International Capital Appreciation Fund, Fidelity Diversified International Fund, and Fidelity Worldwide Fund, and of our report dated December 16, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation Fund, each a fund of Fidelity Investment Trust, appearing inthe Annual Report on Form N-CSR of Fidelity Investment Trust for the year ended October 31,2011, and to the references to us under the headings "Financial Highlights" in the Prospectusesand "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firms" in the Statements of Additional Information, which are a part of such Registration Statement.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

December 23, 2011
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig Lamont BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6998.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 28, 2010.

Craig Lamont Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Craig Lamont Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the court’s earlier denial of his motion to compel on the grounds that Brown sought successive relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 debata*833ble, and that the motion 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT
23.1


Chang
G. Park, CPA, Ph. D.
 t 2667 CAMINO DEL RIO
SOUTH SUITE B t SAN
DIEGO t CALIFORNIA
92108 t
 t TELEPHONE (858)722-5953
t FAX (858)
761-0341  t FAX (858)
764-5480
 t E-MAIL changgpark@gmail.com t





December
15, 2008




To
Whom It May Concern:





The firm
of Chang G. Park, CPA consents to the inclusion of our report of December 12,
2008 on the reviewed condensed consolidated financial statements of Dot VN, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of October 31, 2008, in any filings that are necessary now
or in the near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


Very
      truly yours,/s/Chang
      G. ParkChang
      G. Park,
CPA





Member
of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants


Registered
with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
#### John W. LEVERMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ananda DeSILVA, The Estate of Macio Jackson, Karla M. Scott, Executrix, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-4900-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 16, 2012.

Walter Theodore Charlton, Woodsboro, MD, for Appellant.

Pro se, for Appellees.

Samantha B. Lansky, Milber, Makris, Plousadis *&*Seiden, LLP, Woodbury, NY, for Amicus Curiae.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges and MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM, District Judge.*

*

 Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Plaintiff-appellant John W. Levermore appeals from the district court’s October 2010 grant of summary judgment in favor of Ananda DeSilva and the Estate of Ma-cio Jackson and denial of joinder of Joseph Albano and the Internal Revenue Service. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

*17We review orders granting summary judgment *de novo. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *Id.*

The district court did not err in finding that there are no genuine issues of material fact relating to the timeliness of Lever-more’s fraud claims. Under New York’s statute of limitations, a fraud claim is time-barred if it is brought more than six years after the commission of the fraud unless it is brought within two years from the time the plaintiff “discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.” NY CPLR § 213(8). Levermore’s fraud claims relate to events in 1999 and 2000, but he did not file suit until 2008. He argues that the district court should have tolled the limitations period because defendants’ actions prevented him from discovering defendants’ fraud. *Cf. SEC v. Gabelli,*653 F.3d 49, 59-60 (2d Cir.2011).

Equitable tolling, however, is not appropriate where a plaintiff does not act with reasonable diligence. *Ross v. Louise Wise Servs., Inc.,*8 N.Y.3d 478, 490-92, 836 N.Y.S.2d 509, 517-18, 868 N.E.2d 189 (2007); *see also Johnson v. Nyack Hosp.,*86 F.3d 8, 11-12 (2d Cir.1996); *Dodds v. Cigna Secs., Inc.,*12 F.3d 346, 350 (2d Cir.1993).

The district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact because Levermore was aware of the basic facts — the transactions he now argues are fraudulent — between 2000 and 2003. Because Levermore could have investigated at that time but did not do so, he failed to act with the diligence necessary for equitable tolling. *See Johnson,*86 F.3d at 12. Accordingly, the district court properly denied Levermore’s fraud claims as time-barred.

Levermore does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his contract claims for failure to meet the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
{"agency":"CFTC","generated":"2021-10-04 13:24:30","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2021"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"9"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"7"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["CFTC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["44"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["66"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["14"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2021","quarter":"Q4"}
Exhibit (d)(201)

**Form Of**
EXHIBIT 32


<PAGE>


      In connection with the quarterly report of Synergy Resources Corporation,
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") Ed
Holloway, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Frank L. Jennings,
the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 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 operation of
          the company.


 January 13, 2010                         /s/ Ed Holloway
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Ed Holloway, Principal
                                          Executive Officer




 January 13, 2010                         /s/ Frank L. Jennings
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Frank L. Jennings, Principal
                                          Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION  Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Fritz L. LaPorte, in his capacity as Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of MAKO Surgical Corp., hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:  (i)
     the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2010 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and(ii)
     the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MAKO Surgical Corp.
    August 4, 2010
     /s/ Fritz L. LaPorteFritz L. LaPorte 
Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
  This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of MAKO Surgical Corp. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.  31


---