alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 97-20673 Summary Calendar

_______________
KOFI AMUA-SEKYI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS BURTON RAIFORD, Commissioner of Texas Department of Human Services, and MAMIE EWING, Regional Administrator of Region 6 of Texas Department of Human Services, Defendants-Appellees.

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

(H-95-CV-1567)

_________________________ January 29, 1998
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The plaintiff, Kofi Amua-Sekyi, sued officials of the defendant state age ncy, the Texas Department of Human Services,2

under title VII and the Age D iscrimination in Employment Act, claiming he was unlawfully denied employment after having applied several times. The matter was submitted by consent to a magistrate judge, who granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
On appeal, Amua-Sekyi pursues only hi s age discrimination claim. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the magistrate in her comprehensive and convincing twenty-three-page
M emorandum and Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment entered on July 16, 1997.
AFFIRMED.
CITY OF BURLINGTON v. PUBLISHERS.

No. 518PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2005.

Robert M. Ward, Burlington, Jay H. Ferguson, Durham, for City of Burlington.

Hugh Stevens, Raleigh, for Boney Publishers.

Andrew L. Romanet, Jr., Gregory W. Schwitzgebel, Raleigh, for N.C. League of Municipalities.

John A. Bussian, Mark J. Prak, Raleigh, for Broadcasters.

Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Greensboro, for John Locke Foundation.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of March 2005 by American Civil Liberties Union of NC Legal Foundation, Inc. and the John Locke Foundation for leave to file Amici Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amici Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of March 2005."
Exhibit 32.1

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), Frederic H. Moll, M.D., in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Hansen Medical, Inc., hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:



| | (i) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Hansen Medical, Inc.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 10, 2010



/s/    FREDERIC H. MOLL,
M.D.Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive 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 Hansen Medical, Inc. 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.
Exhibit 31 (c)**CERTIFICATION**I,Anthony J. Orlando, Chief Executive Officer and President certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co. II, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our 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          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:August 15, 2005       By:       /s/ Anthony J. Orlando   Anthony J. Orlando  Chief Executive Officer andPresident
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6184

LEONARD CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; RICHARD A. YOUNG,Regional Administrator; A. D. ROBINSON, Warden; M. L. HILL, Operation Warden; KERN R. GILLIAM, Business Manager; VIKI STOKES; LYNN KISER SAMFORD, Accountants Department of Nottoway Corrections Center, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-747) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 20, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Leonard Carter appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Carter’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Carter v. Virginia , No. CA-97-747 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 1998). We also deny Carter’s motion for execution.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
**EXHIBIT31.4**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Paul B. Carousso,certify that:

1.               Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Visant Corporation;

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of each registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Eachregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for each such registrant and we have:

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to such registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring this period in which this report is being prepared;

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of such registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)              Disclosedin this report any change in such registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, suchregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Eachregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrants’ auditors and the audit committee of such registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect such registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in such registrants’ internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: August 11, 2006 | /s/ Paul B.  Carousso         |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------|
|                  | Paul B. Carousso              |
|                  | *Vice  President, Finance*    |
|                  | *(Chief  Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,

AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Bradley T. Miller, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



1. The accompanying annual report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2. The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Viisage Technology, Inc.



Date: March 16, 2006/s/    BRADLEY T.
MILLERBradley T. Miller Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH TOBIAS BANNER.

No. COA04-558

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 5, 2004.

This case not for publication

Caldwell County, No. 03 CRS 03198.

*Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Harriet F. Worley, for the State.*

*Bryan Gates, for defendant-appellant.*

TYSON, Judge.

Keith Tobias Banner ("defendant") appeals from a judgment finding him to have attained the status of being an habitual felon. We affirm.

**I. Background**

By a true bill of indictment, defendant was charged with possession with intent to sell and deliver a controlled substance and sale and delivery of a controlled substance. In a separate indictment, defendant was charged with having attained habitual felon status. One of the three felonies which triggered the habitual felon indictment was a 13 February 1991 conviction in Caldwell County Superior Court for felony possession of cocaine. Citing this Court's decisions in *State v. Jones,* 161 N.C. App. 60,588 S.E.2d 5 (2003) and *State v. Sneed,* 161 N.C. App. 331, 588 S.E.2d 74 (2003), defendant moved to dismiss the habitual felon indictment on the grounds that his possession of cocaine conviction is classified as a misdemeanor and could not be used as an underlying felony in the habitual felon indictment. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to the sale of cocaine and to having attained the status of an habitual felon. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant reserved his right to seek appellate review of the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss the habitual felon indictment. After the trial court sentenced defendant as a Class C felon to seventy-two to ninety-six months imprisonment, defendant made an oral motion for appropriate relief, again arguing that his possession of cocaine conviction could not be used as an underlying felony in the habitual felon indictment. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals.

**II. Issue**

Defendant contends his habitual felon indictment was invalid because one of the three convictions relied upon by the State to enhance his status to an habitual felon was for possession of cocaine, which is classified as a misdemeanor under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(d)(2).

**III. Possession of Cocaine is a Felony**

Defendant cites our decisions in *Jones* and *Sneed,* as his authority for his interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95 (d)(2). This Court's decisions in *Jones* and *Sneed* were overruled by our Supreme Court in *State v. Jones,* 358 N.C. 473, 598 S.E.2d 125(2004). *See also State v. Sneed,* 358 N.C. 538, 599 S.E.2d 365 (2004) (reversed "[p]ursuant to this Court's opinion in *State v. Jones,* [358 N.C. 473, 598 S.E.2d 125 (2004)]"). In *Jones,* our Supreme Court makes it clear that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(d)(2) classifies possession of cocaine as a felony and is sufficient to serve as an underlying felony for an habitual felon indictment. Jones, 358 N.C. 473, 598 S.E.2d 125. Defendant's assignment of error is overruled.

**IV. Conclusion**

The trial court properly sentenced defendant as an habitual felon.

Affirmed.

Judges WYNN and GEER concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).
STATE v. John Scott BADGETT.

No. 522A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 26, 2005.

Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, for Badgett.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of April 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 26th day of July 2005 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of April 2005."
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 

1, 2012.

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-12-00013-CV

IN RE ARCHDIOCESE OF GALVESTON-HOUSTON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-40506

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On January 6, 2012, relator Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. 

On February 23, 2012, relator filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding because the 

case has been settled. The motion is granted.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Boyce.
---

Exhibit 13 (a)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Paul Averback, President and CEO of Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation, do hereby certify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the information contained in the Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2015 of Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation Date: March 30, 2016 /s/ Paul Averback, MDPaul Averback, MDPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNymox Pharmaceutical Corporation


---
POWER OF ATTORNEY

                  KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,  that the undersigned  hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Christie S. Flanagan,  Renee Nichols Tucei, and
Vanessa L.  Washington or any of them,  each acting  alone,  his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact  and agent,  with full power of substitution for him and in his
name, place and stead, in any and all capacities,  in connection with the GOLDEN
BANCORP INC (the  "Corporation")  Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December  31,  2000  under  the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  as  amended
including,  without  limiting the generality of the foregoing,  to sign the Form
10-K  in the  name  and  on  behalf  of  the  Corporation  or on  behalf  of the
undersigned as a director or officer of the  Corporation,  and any amendments to
the Form 10-K and any instrument,  contract, document or other writing, of or in
connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto,  and to file the same, with
all exhibits  thereto,  and other documents in connection  therewith,  including
this power of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,  the Office
of  Thrift  Supervision,  or  other  appropriate  regulatory  authority  and any
applicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto
said  attorneys-in-fact  and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority
to do and perform  each and every act and thing  requisite  and  necessary to be
done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might
or  could  do  in  person,   hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all  that  said
attorney-in-fact   and  agents,   each  acting  alone,   or  his  substitute  or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the undersigned has signed these presents
this  17  day of March 2001.
    ------

                                                       /s/Cora M. Tellez
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                          Cora M. Tellez
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5057 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5057

       To reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2008

 Mrs. Maloney of New York (for herself, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Smith of 
    Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.

    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 ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 
2008''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.

    Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 
U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(3)--
                    (A) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (D);
                    (B) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as 
                subparagraph (A); and
                    (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) (as so 
                redesignated) the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) For each of the fiscal years 2010 through 
                2014, not less than 40 percent of the grant amounts 
                shall be awarded for purposes under subsection (a)(2) 
                of this section.''; and
            (2) by amending subsection (j) to read as follows:
    ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Attorney General for grants under subsection (a) of 
this section $151,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 
2014.''.
                                 <all>
```
PEDEN GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. v. BENNETT

No. COA04-744

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Wake (98CVS14297)

Case reported without published opinion Affirmed
Consent of Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer



 Exhibit 4(b)(5) 
  
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 
  
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-65904) of our report dated June 29,
2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of ViryaNet Ltd. included in its Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2004. 
  

			
	Tel-Aviv, Israel	 	KOST, FORER GABBAY and KASIERER
	July 25, 2005	 	A Member of Ernst & Young Global
EASTWAY WRECKER SERVICE v. CHARLOTTE.

No. 467A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 2, 2005.

Thomas L. Odom, Jr., for Eastway Wrecker Service.

Cynthia White, Senior Assistant City Attorney, S. Jujeeb Shah-Khan, Assistant City Attorney, for City of Charlotte.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of April 2005 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Eastway Wrecker Service) shall have up to and including the 6th day of June 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of May 2005."