alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 28 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
RODERICK BLAISDELL,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 98-1033
v. (D.C. No. 97-D-2170) GENE ATHERTON and GALE NORTON, (D. Colo.)

Respondents - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral ar gument. Petitioner-Appellant, Mr. Roderick Blaisdell, was c onvicted of several felonies in Colorado state court. After his convic tion, Petitioner filed an1 Petitioner has also moved this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
.

After that motion was filed, Petitioner paid the filing fee for this appeal in full. We therefore dismiss the Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without Prepayment of Costs or Fees as moot. -2- Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The petition alleges that his detention is illegal because the statutes he violat ed do not conform to the Constitution of the State of Colorado. See R., Vol. I, Doc. 1. Petitioner also brought motions in the district court to proceed in forma pauperisand for appointment of counsel. See id. , Docs. 2, 3. The district court denied the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. See id. , Doc. 4 at 5. Because the petition was denied, the court dismissed the motion s as moot. See id. The district court subsequently denied Petitioner’s motion for r econsideration, see id. , Doc. 6, and Motion for a Certificate of Probable Cause (con strued as a motion for a certificate of appealability). See id. , Doc. 12. Petitioner asks this court to grant him a certificate of appealability, arguing that th e district court was in error in dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus . See Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability at 2-3. 1 We conclude, for the same reasons set forth in the district court’s Order of Dismissal dated December 10, 1997, that Petitioner’ s constitutional rights have-3-

not been violated. Accordingly, we DENYPetitioner a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), andDISMISS this appeal. Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
# Official Journal L 260/21 S

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 260 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4921 September 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 260

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4921 September 2006

---

| Contents | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Council |
| | * | Decision No 1/2006 of the EU-Tunisia Association Council of 28 July 2006 amending Protocol 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement, concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation | 1 |
| Protocol 4 concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation | 3 |

Contents

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

page

Council

*

Decision No 1/2006 of the EU-Tunisia Association Council of 28 July 2006 amending Protocol 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement, concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation

1

Protocol 4 concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Subi MEHMETI, petitioner, v. JOFAZ TRANSPORTATION, INC.

No. 17-5653.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Exhibit 23.1



MADSEN & ASSOCIATES CPAs, INC.

Certified Public Accountants and Business Consultants



684 East Vine St #3

Murray, Utah 84107

Telephone 801-268-2632     Fax 801-262-3978





Board of Directors

PBS Holding, Inc.

Universal City, Texas





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of PBS Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows for the years then ended.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.



We conducted our audits in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the results of its consolidated operations and cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.



The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern.  As disclosed in the notes to the consolidated financial statements, the Company will need additional working capital for its planned activity and to service its debt.  This raises substantial doubt about the Companys ability to continue as a going concern.  Managements plans regarding these matters are described in the notes to the consolidated financial statements.  The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.



/s/ Madsen & Associates CPAs, Inc.



May 10, 2007

Murray, Utah





1
Kenneth B. VICTORIA, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-5316

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                    10,847
<SECURITIES>                                              31,611
<RECEIVABLES>                                              8,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 238
<INVENTORY>                                                  832
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          56,261
<PP&E>                                                     5,908
<DEPRECIATION>                                             3,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            60,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     11,490
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                      19
<OTHER-SE>                                                48,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              60,054
<SALES>                                                   33,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          33,042
<CGS>                                                      4,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              8,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          21,769
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              11
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            3,648
<INCOME-TAX>                                               3,724
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                               7,372
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0.39


</TABLE>
Charles Lee GILLENWATER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1427.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)I, Edward J. Puisis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Dayton Superior Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   December 15, 2006 /s/Edward J. Puisis     Edward J. Puisis
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 03/02/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      135,949
COMMITMENTS
  39,104   24,673   17,280   64,831   69,096  121,215  111,049   14,734   24,900

CHANGES FROM 02/23/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -6,763)
     701     -575     -982   -4,370   -4,623   -4,651   -6,180   -2,112     -583

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    28.8     18.1     12.7     47.7     50.8     89.2     81.7     10.8     18.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      160)
      43       28       37       53       62      115      119
```

----

Updated March 2, 2010
# L_2014211EN.01002601.xml

| 17.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 211/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 211/26

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 18/2014

of 14 February 2014

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Directive 2013/47/EU of 2 October 2013 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Directive 2013/47/EU of 2 October 2013 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 24f (Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32013 L 0047: Commission Directive 2013/47/EU of 2 October 2013 (OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 29).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2013/47/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 15 February 2014, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 14 February 2014.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 29.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Keanu D. ORTIZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-1423.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 5, 2018.

The motion of Professor Aditya Bamzai for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument is granted, and the time is divided as follows: 30 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for Professor Aditya Bamzai, and 30 minutes for respondent.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4439 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4439

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 30 (legislative day, September 29), 2020

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend the 
   authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue 
  priority review vouchers to encourage treatments for rare pediatric 
                               diseases.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Creating Hope Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO ISSUE PRIORITY REVIEW VOUCHERS TO 
              ENCOURAGE TREATMENTS FOR RARE PEDIATRIC DISEASES.

    Section 529(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 360ff(b)(5)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``December 11, 2020'' each place it appears 
        and inserting ``September 30, 2024''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``December 11, 2022'' 
        and inserting ``September 30, 2026''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 29, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Collins O. NYABWA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6395.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Gilmar Alexander GUEVARA, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-5280.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER I, Thomas M. Donnelly, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Net Perceptions,
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition
instructions];(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant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 financial reporting; and;  5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: April 13, 2004 /s/ Thomas M. Donnelly

Thomas M. DonnellyPresident and Chief Financial Officer
#### Palm Beach Ocean Realty Company, a corporation, and Central Farmers Trust Company, a corporation, *Appellants*v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company, a corporation, *Appellee.*

En Bane.

Decision filed April 2, 1929.

*Fleming, Hamilton, Diver, Lichliter & Fleming, Wide-man & Wideman, J. Field Wardlow*and *Manley P. Caldwell,*for Appellants;

*455*E. J. L’Engle, J. W. Shands*and *Winters, Eoskett*c& *Wilcox*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed, upon the authority of Clark Dredging Company v. Sunny Isle Ocean Beach Company, 166 So. R. 644, 95 Fla.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.

Brown, J., dissents.
Patrick SANTERAMO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-173.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.