alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Aleksandr Sergeyevich KISELEV.

No. 187P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Paul M. Green, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Kiselev, Aleksandr Sergeyevich.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 5th of June 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of June 2015 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 779 

To reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination 

Act of 2000. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2007 

Mr. CRAIG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community 

Self-Determination Act of 2000. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secure Rural Schools 

5 and Community Self-Determination Reauthorization Act 

6 of 2007’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 779 IS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SECURE RURAL 

2 SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETER3 MINATION ACT OF 2000. 

4 The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-De5 termination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; Public Law 

6 106–393) is amended— 

7 (1) in titles I and II— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘2006’’ each place it ap9 pears and inserting ‘‘2007’’; and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘2007’’ each place it ap11 pears and inserting ‘‘2008’’; 

12 (2) in section 203(e)(3)(B), by striking clauses 

13 (iv), (v), and (vi) and inserting the following: 

14 ‘‘(iv) For each of fiscal years 2004 

15 through 2007, 50 percent.’’; 

16 (3) in section 303, by striking ‘‘2006’’ and in17 serting ‘‘2007’’; and 

18 (4) in section 401, by striking ‘‘2006’’ and in19 serting ‘‘2007’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



          We  consent  to   incorporation   by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  of Xechem  International,  Inc.  and its  subsidiaries  on Forms S-8
Numbers  (33-87034)  and (33-93300) and on Form S-8 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 16, 1996, of our report dated March 15, 1997, on
our audits of the  consolidated  financial  statements of Xechem  International,
Inc. and its  subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996, and for the two years in the
period then  ended,  which  report is  included  in this  Annual  Report on Form
10-KSB.

          On July 1, 1996, the firm of Mortenson and Associates, P.C. changed 
its name to Moore Stephens, P.C.







                                          MOORE STEPHENS, P. C.
                                          Certified Public Accountants.

Cranford, New Jersey
April 11, 1997
S. 597

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

An Act

To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the United

States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.

Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended

by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2011’’.

SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

The National Institutes of Health and the Department of

Defense shall each submit to Congress and the Government

Accountability Office an annual report concerning the use of any

amounts that it received under section 414(c) of title 39, United

States Code, including a description of any significant advances

or accomplishments, during the year covered by the report, that

were funded, in whole or in part, with such amounts.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6235

JOHN PAUL SMITH, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

GENE M. JOHNSON, VDOC Director; FRED SCHILLING, VDOC Health

Services Director; POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER; EDDIE L.

PEARSON, Warden; WARDEN BAILEY; DOCTOR RODR; NURSE SPIGLE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00643-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 29, 2008

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Paul Smith, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Paul Smith, Sr., appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to

state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Smith v. Virginia, No. 2:06-cv-00643-RBS-TEM (E.D.

Va. Jan. 17, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4325

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE OTTIS BENNETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:00-cr-00319-WO-1)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Ottis Bennett appeals the district court’s order

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty

months’ imprisonment followed by a sixteen-month term of supervised

release. On appeal, his attorney has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are

no meritorious issues for review but questioning the reasonableness

of the sentence imposed. Bennett was advised of his right to file

a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. After a thorough

review of the record, we affirm.

We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation of

supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory limits

and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d

433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813

(2007); see also United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th

Cir. 2008). Bennett’s sentence is below the statutorily authorized

maximum sentence of two years, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000),

and falls below the advisory guideline range of twenty-four to

thirty months’ imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§§ 7B1.4(a)(p.s.), 7B1.4(b)(3)(A) (2007). Finally, the district

court adequately considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)

(West 2000 & Supp. 2008) factors when imposing sentence. See 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e). We conclude that the sentence is not plainly

unreasonable.
3

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record for meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we

affirm the revocation of Bennett’s supervised release and his

sentence. This court requires counsel to inform Bennett in writing

of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. Accordingly, we also deny counsel’s motion to

withdraw as counsel. If Bennett requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may renew his motion for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Bennett. 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification

I, Harry M. Neer, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Rockport Healthcare, Group, Inc.;

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;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:

a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in 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;

c.   Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: June 29, 2004


/s/ Harry M. Neer
------------------------------
Harry M. Neer, Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0620

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

JOSEPH DWAYNE MATT,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until January 17, 2024, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

December 13 2023

12/13/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0620
# Council Decision (EU) 2015/1147Show full title

Council Decision (EU) 2015/1147 of 13 July 2015 appointing a Greek alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (EU) 2015/1147                     

# of 13 July 2015

# appointing a Greek alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Greek Government,

Whereas:

(1)On 26 January, on 5 February and on 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116(1), (EU) 2015/190(2) and (EU) 2015/994(3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January                              2020.

(2)An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr                              Kostas BAKOGIANNIS,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term                     of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:                  
          -  Mr Theodoros GOTSOPOULOS, *Politically accountable to the Regional Council of Attica*                          

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 13 July 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

F. Etgen                            

1

OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42.                           

2

OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25.                           

3

OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70.
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles Edward HUMPHRIES, Jr.

No. 256P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Charles Edward Humphries, Jr., for Humphries, Charles Edward (Jr.).

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd of July 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Transylvania County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         441,838
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    191,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,261,138
<PP&E>                                         335,072
<DEPRECIATION>                                 267,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,498,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,613,984
<BONDS>                                        1,764,915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       19,235
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,120,439)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,498,880
<SALES>                                        414,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               433,207
<CGS>                                          157,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,297,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             194,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,216,421)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,216,421)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,216,421)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
STATE v. Jesus Rafael RODRIGUEZ.

No. 379P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Jesus Rafael Rodrigues, Spruce Pine, for Rodriguez, Jesus Rafael.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of November 2015 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
Eduardo ANZURES, Plaintiff, v. Ashleigh Kate WALBECQ, Defendant.

No. COA15-611.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

# AGENCY:

Department of Transportation. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Order To Show Cause (Order 2005-9-12); Docket OST-2005-20363. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding PM Air, LLC fit, willing, and able, and awarding it a certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail operating no more than two aircraft in scheduled service under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

# DATES:

Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than September 26, 2005. 

# ADDRESSES:

Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket OST-2005-20363 and addressed to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room PL-401), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-7785. 

Dated: Monday, September 12, 2005. 

Karan K. Bhatia, 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affair. 

[FR Doc. 05-18411 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
(LOGO)ERNST & YOUNG LLP
      One Columbus
      10 West Broad Street                    Phone: 614 224 5678
      Columbus, Ohio 43215-3400               Fax:   614 222 3939





                          Independent Auditors' Report

Board of Directors
The Huntington Mortgage Company

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled REPORT OF MANAGEMENT,  that The  Huntington  Mortgage  Company  (HMC), a
wholly-owned  subsidiary  of The  Huntington  National  Bank,  complied with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's  UNIFORM SINGLE  ATTESTATION  PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE  BANKERS during the
year ended  December 31, 1997.  Management is responsible  for HMC's  compliance
with  those  requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on
management's assertion about HMC's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination  was conducted in accordance  with standards  established by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  HMC's  compliance  with  those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on HMC's
compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that HMC complied with the aforementioned
requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1997 is fairly  stated,  in all
material respects.

                                                      /s/Ernst & Young LLP


March 12, 1998


       Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
Exhibit 10.12

                                 ASPA GOLD CORP.
                 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RENAISSANCE BIOENERGY INC.)
                      CANCELLATION OF ACCRUED COMPENSATION

The  undersigned  present  or former  officer  or  director  of ASPA Gold  Corp.
(formerly   known  as  Renaissance   BioEnergy   Inc.),  a  Nevada   corporation
("Company"),  is owed  compensation  (the  "Payable") by the Company for past or
future  services.  The Company is entering into a Line of Credit Loan  Agreement
(the "Loan  Agreement")  with North  American Gold & Minerals  Fund  ("Lender"),
pursuant to which Lender will make available to the Company an unsecured line of
credit. As a condition to entering into the Loan Agreement, Lender requires that
the undersigned cancel and forgive, in its entirety,  the Payable.  Accordingly,
for good and valuable  consideration  and  intending to be legally bound hereby,
the  undersigned  hereby  cancels and  forgives,  in its  entirety,  any accrued
compensation  owed by the Company for past or future  services:  The undersigned
represents  and warrants  that the amount set forth below  constitutes  all sums
owing to the undersigned with respect to past or future services to the Company.
The undersigned will claim no further  compensation  from the Company and hereby
consents to termination by the Company of any agreement or arrangement  pursuant
to which such compensation was accrued.

Name:   Jeffrey Wolin
Amount: $55,580.65

Each of Company  and Lender  shall be  beneficiaries  entitled  to enforce  this
Cancellation.

This Cancellation shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Nevada (other than conflict-of-laws principles). The undersigned
hereby  consents to the  jurisdiction of the State and Federal courts sitting in
Clark  County,  Nevada,  for all  cases  and  controversies  arising  from  this
Cancellation and acknowledges that said courts are not "inconvenient forums."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this Cancellation
as of the day and year set forth below.

JEFFREY WOLIN


/s/ Jeffrey Wolin
-----------------------------------
Date: November 30, 2010