alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ROBERT ALLEN BANE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MR. ROBINSON; DOCTOR MAY; DOCTOR THOMPSON; RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of No. 97-7591 Corrections; E. B. WALKER, Assistant Warden; MS. EPPERSON, Head Nurse; E. WHITLEY, Nurse, LPN; J. H. FIELDS, Regional Ombudsman; SERGEANT LOVE; SERGEANT TAYLOR, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-243-AM) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: November 6, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Robert Allen Bane, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Elizabeth Butter-worth Stutts, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Robert Allen Bane appeals from the district court's order dismissing his complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A.§ 1983 (West Supp. 1998), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) (ADA). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error regarding Bane's § 1983 claims. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of these claims on the reasoning of the district court. Bane v. Robinson , No. CA-96-243-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 1997).Turning to Bane's ADA claim, we note that the district court disposed of this claim under our holding in Amos v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services , 126 F.3d 589 (4th Cir. 1997), stating that the ADA does not apply to prisons. During the pendency of Bane's appeal, the Supreme Court held in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey , ___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 4481 (U.S. June 15, 1998) (No. 97-634), that Title II of the ADA does apply to state prison and prisoners. Following this announcement, the Court vacated our opinion in Amos . Our review of the record leads usto conclude that, notwithstanding Title II's applicability to state prisons, the district court properly disposed of Bane's ADA claims because his pleadings fail to establish a violation of Title II or any other Title of the ADA. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's holding on this alternative ground.We also deny Bane's pending motions for a special order of injunction or compulsion as moot. We dispense with oral argument because
2the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
STATE v. CALHOUN

No. COA04-1680.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Wake (02CRS34228).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. New Trial.
CHAMBLISS v. HEALTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION.

No. 194P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Colleen Shea, Jaye E. Bingham, Raleigh, for Health Sciences, et al.

Gary K. Shipman, William G. Wright, Wilmington, for Kelly & Caroline Chambliss.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of May 2006 by Defendants to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of June 2006."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5014 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on oysters (other than smoked), 

prepared or preserved. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2008 

Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on oysters (other 

than smoked), prepared or preserved. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OYSTERS (OTHER THAN SMOKED), PREPARED 

4 OR PRESERVED. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.07 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 oysters (other than smoked), prepared or preserved) is 

8 amended by striking the date in the effective period col9 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5014 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
Exhibit 31.2PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION     I, Larry Vasbinder, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of CollinsReceivables, LLC, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Collins Receivables, LLC (the“Registrant”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditor 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 21, 2005 /s/ Larry Vasbinder   Chief Financial Officer, Principal   Accounting Officer
#### In the Matter of Senator NN., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Donna NN., Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 860]

Carpinello, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered June 29, 2004, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, for an extension of placement, and (2) from an order of said court, entered June 29, 2004, which granted petitioner’s application for an order of protection.

*1188The child who is the subject of this Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding was born to respondent on August 11, 1999. Thereafter, the child was adjudicated neglected and placed in petitioner’s custody pending a dispositional hearing. The adjudication of neglect was upheld by this Court (11 AD3d 771 [2004] ). Pursuant to a modified dispositional order, the child was placed in petitioner’s custody until June 15, 2004. On April 15, 2004, petitioner sought, among other things, to have the order of placement extended beyond June 15, 2004. Following a hearing, Family Court issued an order extending the child’s placement until November 4, 2004 and granted petitioner’s request for an order of protection against respondent which was set to expire on the same date. Respondent appeals from both orders.

Respondent’s appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing her on the ground that the appeals are moot due to the expiration of the orders on November 4, 2004. Based upon our review of the record, we agree that inasmuch as the order extending placement and the order of protection are no longer in effect, the appeals are moot and must be dismissed *(see Matter of Natasha F.,*15 AD3d 788, 789 [2005]; *Matter of Marcel S.,*15 AD3d 808, 809 [2005]; *Matter of Noor v Noor,*15 AD3d 788 [2005]). In view of this, we need not address counsel’s request to be relieved of his assignment *(see Matter of Natasha F., supra*at 789; *People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Cardona, P.J., Her cure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.
HOMESTEAD STUDIO SUITES HOTEL v. Sara E. PARKER.

No. 385P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2004.

Sara E. Parker, Pro Se.

Brian Darer, Raleigh, for Homestead Suites Hotel.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 2nd day of August 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and *313is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2004."
# C_2004193EN.01S00301.xml

| 29.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/s3

---

NOTICE

NOTICE

The 42nd edition of the Directory of Community Legislation in Force was published at the end of June 2004. It will be the last paper edition. In future, this Directory will only be available in electronic form on EUR-Lex, the website giving access to European legislation. A printable pdf version will also be available. The 42nd edition concerns legislation in force on 1 January 2004 and is only available in the official languages of that date.

Directory of Community Legislation in Force

Subscribers to the paper version of the Official Journal can get one free copy of this Directory for each language version to which they have subscribed. Subscribers should return the order form below, duly completed with their subscriber number (code printed on the left of each label, starting with O/ .......).

Non-subscribers can obtain the Directory from one of our sales offices (see overleaf) on payment of the cover price.

All Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) can be consulted free of charge online at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

Catalogue No: OA-23-03-000-EN-C

Image

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adrian Ferguson, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 655]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Donald J. Mark, J.), rendered October 3, 2000. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of kidnap*1416ping in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of kidnapping in the second degree (Penal Law § 135.20), reckless endangerment in the first degree (§ 120.25), attempted robbery in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 160.15 [2]), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03) and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree (§ 265.09 [1]). Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (a) and 210.20 (1) (g). The People timely announced their readiness for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action *(see*CPL 30.30 [1] [a]), and they are not chargeable with the period of postreadiness delay resulting from the failure of defendant to appear and his subsequent absence from the jurisdiction *(see People v Carter,*91 NY2d 795, 798-799 [1998]; *People v Roberts,*176 AD2d 1200, 1201 [1991], *lv denied*79 NY2d 831 [1991]). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the third through sixth counts of the indictment are duplicitous *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Spagnualo,*5 AD3d 995, 997 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 807 [2004]; *People v Bryan,*270 AD2d 875 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 904 [2000]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The contention of defendant that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel is based upon matters outside the trial record and thus must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 *(see People v Walton,*14 AD3d 419, 420 [2005]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
NC BOARD OF PHARMACY v. COMMISSION.

No. 673A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 26, 2006.

Carson Carmichael, III, M. Denise Stanford, Anna Baird Choi, Pual K. Sun, Jr., Julia F. Youngman, Raleigh, for NC Board of Pharmacy.

William W. Plyler, Stephen T. Smith, Raleigh, Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor-General, for Rules of Review Commission, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of April 2006 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (NC Board of Pharmacy) shall have up to and including the 22nd day of May 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of April 2006."
AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                 TO THE BY-LAWS
                                       OF
                       NEW YORK REGIONAL RAIL CORPORATION


1. Article XI is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following revised
Article XI:

                                   ARTICLE XI
                              CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

(a) No contract or transaction between the Corporation and one (1) or more of
its directors or officers, or between the Corporation and any other corporation,
partnership, association, or other organization in which one (1) or more of its
directors or officers, are directors or officers, or have a financial interest,
shall be void or voidable solely for this reason, or solely because the director
or officer is present at or participates in the meeting of the board or
committee which authorizes the contract or transaction, or solely because any
such director's or officer's votes are counted for such purpose, if:

       (1) The material facts as to the director's or officer's relationship or
       interest and as to the contract or transaction are disclosed or are known
       to the Board of Directors or the committee, and the board or committee in
       good faith authorizes the contract or transaction by the affirmative vote
       of a majority of the disinterested directors, even though the
       disinterested directors may be less than a quorum; or

       (2) The material facts as to the director's or officer's relationship or
       interest and as to the contract or transaction are disclosed or are known
       to the shareholders entitled to vote thereon, and the contract or
       transaction is specifically approved in good faith by vote of the
       shareholders; or

       (3) The contract or transaction is fair as to the Corporation as of the
       time it is authorized, approved or ratified, by the Board of Directors, a
       committee or the shareholders.

(b) Common or interested directors may be counted in determining the presence of
a quorum at a meeting of the board of directors or of a committee which
authorizes the contract or transaction.
STATE v. BOONE.

No. COA05-1627.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (04CRS59348, 04CRS63106).

Case without published opinion. No error.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-41403 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. HORACIO MANJARREZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:12-CR-443-1
Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Horacio ManjarrezSanchez has m oved for leave to withdra w a n d has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2 011). Manjarrez-Sanchez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the r elevant p ortions of the record reflected therein. We c oncur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D June 18, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-41403 Document: 00512278507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2013

### No. 12-41403

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H 

### C I R


### . R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-41403 Document: 00512278507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Scientific  Energy,  Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2005,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Todd B. Crosland,
President  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, to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/ Todd B. Crosland
Todd B. Crosland
President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


August 8, 2005


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Paul B. Carousso,certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Visant Holding Corp. andVisant 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 theregistrant’s 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date: August 16, 2005 | /s/ Paul B. Carousso         |   |
|-----------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|                  | Paul B. Carousso             |   |
|                  | *Vice President, Finance*    |   |
|                  | *(Chief Accounting Officer)* |   |

 

----