alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4572

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES D. ABBOTT, a/k/a John Jasper Roberson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-00-106) Submitted: January 16, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Stephen Welch, L.A. Smokey Brown, Jr., THE WELCH LAW FIRM, P.C., Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, UnitedStates Attorney, Isaac Johnson, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James D. Abbott appeals the district court’s April 12, 2000, denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from a rental car in which he was a passenger. We hold the district court did not err in concluding the evidence was admissible, and we affirm on the reasoning the court articulated at the hearing on motion to suppress the evidence. See Whren v. United States , 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996); United States v. Hassan El , 5 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 1993). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 550

AN ACT

To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of 

the District of Columbia.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 550 ES

1 SECTION 1. COMPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT. 

2 Section 903 of title 11 of the District of Columbia 

3 Code is amended by striking ‘‘fifty-eight’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘61’’. 

Passed the Senate February 4, 2008. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 550

AN ACT

To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia.
----

(2004/C 33 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1314/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   Voting rights for EU citizens when living in another EU country

I have recently been contacted by a British citizen who has been living in Austria since 1981.

As a result of his extended absence he is unable to vote in national elections in the UK, due to UK rules which state that after 15 years of absence a citizen can no longer vote in UK elections.

However, he is not able to vote in national elections in Austria either. Austrian rules allow non-Austrian citizens to vote only in local and European elections.

There is no time limit on how long Austrian citizens living abroad are able to continue voting in Austrian national elections. This difference in attitude of the Austrian and UK authorities has led to this anomalous situation.

This situation is problematic, as clearly as a British and EU citizen this individual ought to be able to vote in the national elections either of his country of residence or of his country of citizenship. Voting is a key democratic right and to be denied this right is serious.

What is the Commission's view on this situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Honourable Member raises the point that United Kingdom citizens having been living abroad for more than 15 years lose their right to vote in the United Kingdom.

The Commission refers first the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1301/02 from Mr Michael Cashman (1), and confirms that Community law guarantees only that every Union citizen has the right to vote and stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament and at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State. The right to vote of own nationals of a Member State in elections of that Member State belongs fully to the competence of the Member States, independent whether those citizens reside in its territory or outside of its territory, as explicitly confirmed in the relevant Directives 93/109/EC (2) and Directive 94/80/EC (3).

----

(1)OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003.

(2)  Council Directive of 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, OJ L 329, 31.12.1993.

(3)  Council Directive of 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.

----
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Delia Jazmi Delmas v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00374

- CR

Trial court case number: 1529893

Trial court: 230th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s motion s to substitute counsel , supplement the reporter’s record, and exten d the

time to file appellant’s brief are granted. Appellant’s brief is due within 50 days of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting individually

Date: July 31 , 2018
STATE v. JUSTICE.

No. COA08-328.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (06CRS46671, 06CRS46672, 06CRS48045).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
BROADBENT v. ALLISON.

No. COA07-1342.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Transylvania (01CVS261).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 56 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 56

To provide relief to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for settlement of 
               certain claims against the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. Reid (for Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide relief to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for settlement of 
               certain claims against the United States.

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

SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS.

    (a) Authorization for Payment.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
pay to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada $1,830,000 from amounts 
appropriated under section 1304 of title 31, United States Code.
    (b) Payment in Accordance With Stipulation for Recommendation of 
Settlement.--The payment under subsection (a) shall--
            (1) be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of 
        the Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement dated May 22, 
        2000, entered into between the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada and 
        the United States (referred to in this Act as the ``Stipulation 
        for Recommendation of Settlement''); and
            (2) be included in the report of the Chief Judge of the 
        United States Court of Federal Claims regarding Congressional 
        Reference No. 94-1037X, submitted to the Senate on January 4, 
        2001, in accordance with sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, 
        United States Code.
    (c) Full Satisfaction of Claims.--The payment under subsection (a) 
shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of the Pottawatomi Nation 
in Canada against the United States that are referred to or described 
in the Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement.
    (d) Nonapplicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 
1401 et seq.) does not apply to the payment under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Fanta Falanda JACOBS.

No. 348P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Vincent F. Rabil, for Jacobs.

Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th day of July 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, New Hanover County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
Exhibit 31.1
                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Charles M. Weaver, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
            S&P-Linked Investment Trust Certificates, Series 1997-SP-1 Trust
            (the "Trust");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
            report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
            required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
            pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
            reports is included in these reports; and

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or
            similar agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual
            compliance review required under that agreement, and except as
            disclosed in the reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each
            fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York, as
Trustee.



Date: March 21, 2007


      /s/ Charles M. Weaver
----------------------------------------
Charles M. Weaver, Senior Vice President
STATE v. Billy Joe CLEVELAND, Sr.

No. 59P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Richard J. Votta, Assistant Attorney General, William D. Kenerly, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of February 2008 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
NORTH CAROLINA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GUILFORD TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

No. 470P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Christopher J. Blake, Leslie Lane Mize, Raleigh, for Insurance Guaranty Asso.

Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., James L. Gale, James R. Holland, Raleigh, for Guilford Tech College.

Prior report: 185 N.C.App. 518, 648 S.E.2d 859.

*ORDER*

The Court allows plaintiff's Petition for Discretionary Review and orders briefing on the following issues:

(1) Whether granting the right to a State agency to participate in a program, including the right to sue for benefits arising from the program, waives the defense of sovereign immunity?

(2) Whether a legislative amendment which made State agencies and subdivisions "persons" eligible for the benefits of the North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Association Act (N.C.G.S. § 58-48-1 *et seq.*) also waived the defense of sovereign immunity as to the NCIGA's expressly granted cause-of-action against high networth employers?

*681By Order of the Court in Conference, this 11th day of December, 2008.
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF TECHNICAL REPORT AUTHOR





SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.


7175 W. Jefferson Ave.


Lakewood, Colorado 802335








November 18, 2011





Calais Resources Inc.


P.O. Box 653


Nederland, Colorado 80466





RE:  “Updated NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources Calais Resources Inc. Consolidated Caribou Project Boulder County, Colorado, USA dated February 8, 2011 and updated August 29, 2011” and “Updated NI 43-101 Technical Report on Exploration Calais Resources Inc. Manhattan Project Nye County, Nevada, USA dated February 10, 2011 and updated August 11, 2011” (collectively the “Technical Reports”)





SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (“SRK”) does hereby consent to the inclusion, incorporation, and use of all or a portion of the above referenced Technical Reports, and any references thereto and summaries thereof, within the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011, as amended (the “Amended Form 10-K”), of Calais Resources Inc. filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and any amendments to such Amended Form 10-K filed with the SEC.





SRK certifies that it has read the written disclosures being filed and included in the Amended Form 10-K and that such disclosures fairly and accurately represent the information in the Technical Reports that support the disclosures.  SRK has no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained therein that are derived from the Technical Reports or within our knowledge as a result of the services performed by SRK Consulting in connection with the Technical Reports.





SRK hereby consents to being named as an expert in the Amended Form 10-K and any amendment to such Amended Form 10-K filed with the SEC.  SRK does hereby state that it prepared the Technical Reports and believes the Technical Reports state fairly and accurately the information in the Technical Reports.





SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.





/s/ Neal Rigby








Neal Rigby, PhD, AIME, MIMMM


Corporate Consultant, Mining
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 133940 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. 

### Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices 

### v SC: 133940 COA: 276900 Kent CC: 05-011749-FH 05-012024-FC RICARDO CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 19, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
STATE v. Rabon Earl BUTLER.

No. 557P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of November 2007 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

*489"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of January 2008."
STATE v. GRANT.

No. COA08-292.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CRS244094, 05CRS244095, 05CRS76342).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                          

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                           2,407
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,822
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,747
<INVENTORY>                                     46,404
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,717
<PP&E>                                          59,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,336
<BONDS>                                         63,261
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   167,321
<SALES>                                         42,218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,218
<CGS>                                           27,614
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,614
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,264
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                       362
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                712
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       712
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
| 1.   | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Tier Technologies, Inc.; and |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| January 28, 2011 | /s/ Ronald W. Johnston  |
|------------------|-------------------------|
|             | Ronald W. Johnston      |
|             | Chief Financial Officer |
# The Town and Country Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

S

Scottish Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 51

Town And Country Planning

# The Town and Country Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

25th February 2014

Laid before the Scottish Parliament

27th February 2014

Coming into force

29th March 2014

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Regulations revoked (1.6.2015) by The Town and Country Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Regulations 2015 (S.S.I. 2015/181), reg. 1, **sch. 9**
Exhibit
      23.1




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








Board
of Directors and Stockholders


GameTech
International, Inc.





We have
issued our reports dated January 28, 2009 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting included in the Annual Report of GameTech International, Inc. on Form
10-K for the year ended November 2, 2008.  We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of
GameTech International, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-122836 effective
February 15, 2005, 333-72886 effective November 7, 2001, and 333-51411
effective April 30, 1998).








/S/
GRANT THORNTON LLP








Reno,
Nevada


January
28, 2009
RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL MATURO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, TREASURER
        AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.,
      THE SOLE GENERAL PARTNER OF THE REGISTRANT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
              OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I, Michael  Maturo,  Executive  Vice  President,  Treasurer and Chief  Financial
Officer of Reckson  Associates Realty Corp., the sole general partner of Reckson
Operating Partnership, L.P. (the "Company"),  certify pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      1)    The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
            period ended June 30, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully  complies with the
            requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange
            Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: August 9, 2004
                                   By         /s/ Michael Maturo
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Michael Maturo, Executive Vice President,
                                     Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of
                                     Reckson Associates Realty Corp.,
                                     the sole general partner of the Registrant

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Reckson  Operating  Partnership,  L.P.  and will be furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donnell Harris, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 514]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J), rendered May 23, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

When he pleaded guilty, the defendant waived his right to appellate review of the issues raised in his motion to suppress *(see People v Konieczny,*2 NY3d 569, 573 [2004]; *People v Fernandez,*67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]; *People v Carter,*304 AD2d 771 [2003]). Additionally, his conviction rested upon the sufficiency of the facts he articulated at his plea allocution and not upon any facts set out in any prior proceedings *(see People v Hansen,*95 NY2d 227, 230 [2000]; *see also People v Konieczny, supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contentions are foreclosed from appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.