alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### $oi*s~r £/**>***»*/Ck'»€lr* f Ffor* fU %£~/^<O0r<^r

3^_L^_jj/^L/^__^AH

## 1 / a(H^j /v /* RECEIVEDIN fir±£jzLa •£*-*** —JUL 16 2015 -r I I) t / „ i Abel^costa, Clerk, . £.0 Or-f I T - / Came5 /lOUs i TA^ cx^rf/?*//an T > x\ t^ a«o-^- 

### tk'S ho^Os-c^LU <CCxJr~-( TO Crr^Tf ~^A ft/A^'11' REEDIN 7^" 

### COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS , ^ 

## JUL212G15 KoLr-r V^/y>*r\ JUL 2 12G15 '^°*' f "•?' 

### fop*//*** A*9v**r PiEftL ur\H /* I /K / Abel Acosta, Clerk n ~ ^__ « ^ . ~7 **( Ion
Debra S. JONES v. WELLS FARGO COMPANY and Joshua Hodgin

No. 293P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Cedric R. Perry, Attorney at Law, for Jones, Debra S.

John G. McDonald, Meredith A. Pinson, Attorneys at Law, for Wells Fargo Company, et al.

Joshua D. Davey, Attorney at Law, for the State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 10th of September 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina 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 December 2018."
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-76399) pertaining to the Accredo Health, Inc. and its Subsidiaries
Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and restated; the
Accredo Health, Incorporated 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; the Accredo
Health, Incorporated 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Accredo Health,
Incorporated 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, and to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-102372) of Accredo
Health, Incorporated and in the related Prospectus of our report dated August
16, 2002, with respect to the 2002 consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Accredo Health, Incorporated included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2004.


                                             /s/  Ernst & Young LLP





Memphis, Tennessee
September 8, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5049 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5049

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the matters covered by 
 preseparation counseling provided to members of the Armed Forces and 
                             their spouses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2010

Mr. Carson of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the matters covered by 
 preseparation counseling provided to members of the Armed Forces and 
                             their spouses.

    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 ``Military Families Financial 
Preparedness Act''.

SEC. 2. MATTERS COVERED BY PRESEPARATION COUNSELING FOR MEMBERS OF THE 
              ARMED FORCES AND THEIR SPOUSES.

    Section 1142(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``job placement 
        counseling for the spouse'' and inserting ``inclusion of the 
        spouse when counseling regarding the matters covered by 
        paragraphs (9), (10), and (16) is provided, job placement 
        counseling for the spouse, and the provision of information on 
        survivor benefits available under the laws administered by the 
        Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs'';
            (2) in paragraph (9), by inserting before the period the 
        following: ``, including information on budgeting, saving, 
        credit, loans, and taxes'';
            (3) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and employment'' and 
        inserting ``, employment, and financial'';
            (4) by striking paragraph (16) and inserting the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(16) Information on home loan services and housing 
        assistance benefits available under the laws administered by 
        the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and counseling on responsible 
        borrowing practices.''; and
            (5) in paragraph (17), by inserting before the period the 
        following: ``, and information regarding the means by which the 
        member can receive additional counseling regarding the member's 
        actual entitlement to such benefits and apply for such 
        benefits''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KELLY DEAN CARVER

No. 6930SC69

(Filed 30 April 1969)

Appeal by defendant from *Jackson, J.,*at the July 1968 Regular Criminal Session of Haywood Superior Court.

The defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with store breaking and larceny. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged on the store breaking count and not guilty of ■larceny. From active prison sentence imposed, defendant appealed.

*521
      *Attorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney Carlos W. Murray, Jr., for the State.*

*Frank D. Ferguson, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

Britt, J.

In his brief, defendant’s court-appointed counsel brings forward no assignment of error and states that he is unable to find error in the record. He asks that the court review the record for error and this we have done. We find that the defendant was charged under a valid bill of indictment, that he was given a fair trial free from prejudicial error, and that the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. *State v. Williams,*3 N.C. App. 233, 164 S.E. 2d 404, and cases therein cited.

The judgment of the superior court is

Affirmed.

Mallard, C.J., and Pareer, J., concur.
Exhibit 32.2


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 RealPage, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2019 (the “Report”), I, Thomas C. Ernst, Jr., Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of RealPage, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:


(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 results of operations of RealPage, Inc.


Date: November 4, 2019





/s/ Thomas C. Ernst, Jr.Thomas C. Ernst, Jr.Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to RealPage, Inc. and will be retained by RealPage, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 23.2




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm














Implant Sciences Corporation


Wilmington, Massachusetts








We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No.’s 333-109677, 333-111434, 333-117366, 333-124058, 333-127167, 333-129911) and Forms S-8 (No.’s 333-42816, 333-111117, 333-138292, 333-144892) of our report dated October 9, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Implant Sciences Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2010.













/s/ UHY LLP


Houston, Texas


February 14, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                             LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                 Country, State
                                                                  or Province
                                                                of Incorporation
                                                                ----------------
Metallurg, Inc.                                                 Delaware
   Metallurg International Resources, LLC                       Delaware
   Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation                        Delaware
   Metallurg Services, Inc.                                     New York
   MIR (China), Inc. (dormant)                                  Delaware
   Metallurg (Canada) Limited                                   Quebec, Canada
   Metallurg Holdings Corporation                               New York
      Metallurg Europe Limited                                  England
         London & Scandinavian Metallurgical Co Limited         England
            S. A. Vickers Limited (dormant)                     England
            H. M. I. Limited (dormant)                          England
            Metal Alloys (South Wales) Limited (dormant)        England
            Metalloys Limited (dormant)                         England
            The Aluminium Powder Company Limited                England
               Alpoco Developments Limited (dormant)            England
               Benda-Lutz-Alpoco Sp.zo.o.                       Poland
            M & A Powders Limited (dormant)                     England
            Hydelko AS                                          Norway
         Companhia Industrial Fluminense                        Brazil
      Metallurg (Far East) Limited                              Japan
      Metallurg Mexico S. A. de C. V.                           Mexico
      Metallurg Servicios S de RL de CV                         Mexico
      Caribbean Metals & Alloys Limited (dormant)               Jersey, CI
      Brandau y Cia S. A. (dormant)                             Spain
      Aleaciones Metalurgicas Venezolanas C. A. (dormant)       Venezuela

Notes
Dormant subsidiaries have no operations.

As at June 16, 2004
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, 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 Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael P. ODonnellMichael P. ODonnellExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


November 10, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1914

In re: MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT, a/k/a Lanky, a/k/a Donovan Smith, a/k/a 

Richard Onyett, a/k/a Bernard Barber, a/k/a James D. Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:99-cr-00341-MBS-3)

Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Owen Harriot, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Harriot petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the 

district court to provide him a certified copy of a warrant. We conclude that Harriot is not 

entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 

907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. 

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by Harriot is not available by way of mandamus, as he improperly 

attempts to seek appellate review of the district court’s order denying his motion for copies 

filed in his criminal case. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
### NUMBER 13
- 1 9
- 00 039
- C V 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

IN R E CLAUDIA RAMOS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the amended motion for rehearing filed by
Claudia Ramos . This Court previously issued a memorandum opinion dismissing this proceeding as moot. See In re Ramos , No. 13

- 19

- 00039

- CV, 2019 WL 1051415, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Mar. 7, 2019, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.). Ramos asserts that the settlement previously reached in this case did not encompass all parties to this original proceeding. The Court, having ful ly examined and considered Ramos’s motion for rehearing , is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's motion for rehearing should be2 granted. Accordingly, we withdraw our previous opinion. This original proceeding remains pending befor e the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 8th day of April , 201 9

.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 24.1


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Jack Chen and Richard Yan, jointly and severally,
as his attorneys-in-fact, each with the power of substitution, for him in any
and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this Report on Form 10-QKSB and to
file the same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that each of said attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes may do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1934, this Form 10-QSB has
been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates
indicated:

   Signature                        Title                            Date

 /s/ Jack Chen       Chief Executive Officer and Director     November 13, 2006
---------------
   Jack Chen

/s/ Richard Yan            Chief Financial Officer            November 13, 2006
---------------
  Richard Yan
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SHOCHET LAW GROUP

, Appellant,

v.

JAMES F. MULVEY and NATIONAL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE

COMPANY
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D2022

- 2615

[ December 21, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19006899.

Randall M. Shochet of Shochet Law Group

, Trenton

, for appellant.

Morgan L

. Weinstein of Twig, Trade, & Tribunal, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale

, for appellee James F. Mulvey.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., G ROSS and L EVINE
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Wayne BLACK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 71-2729.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 16, 1972.

*1298Paul Mike Goorjian (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

John F. Cooney, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., F. Steele Langford, Asst. U. S. Atty. & Chief, Criminal Division, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before HAMLIN, DUNIWAY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant herein was convicted after a jury trial of a violation of 50 U.S.C. App. Section 462 (Refusal to Submit to Induction).

Appellant’s sole contention is that his physical pre-induction examination disclosed that he had a disqualifying condition.1 The medical report in appellant’s selective service file, which was admitted in evidence, set out appellant’s physical condition. The record discloses ample evidence that appellant’s condition was diagnosed and that two Army doctors found appellant acceptable for military service. In his instructions, the district judge instructed the jury that “the determination made by the doctor was made on a sufficient basis and therefore the determination of the propriety of the order to report for induction” was not before the jury, and that as a matter of law the appellant was under an obligation to report for induction.

We agree.

In United States v. Shunk, 438 F.2d 1204 (9th Cir.), where the appellant offered testimony at the trial concerning his physical condition, which testimony was rejected, the court stated:

> “There being no indication of arbitrary action or deficiency in prescribed procedure in connection with the described examination and subsequent inspection, the record provides a basis in fact for the determination that defendant was physically fit to be inducted. See Vasilj v. United States, 425 F.2d 1134 (9th Cir. 1970).

> “Absent some highly unusual circumstance, not present here, this left no room for further inquiry at the trial concerning defendant’s physical fitness to be inducted. . . . The trial court did not err in rejecting the offered testimony.”

In this case the record shows there was a basis in fact for the finding of acceptability. We see no error in the action of the District Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. Army medical standards provide for rejection when examination reveals an undiagnosed mass or enlargement of the testicle or epididymis. Alt 40-501, section 2-14m (2).
Exhibit
      31.1





CERTIFICATION








I,
      Luo
      Ken Yi, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of China Architectural Engineering, 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 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
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





a.
      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant’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; and




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





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





a.
      All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; and





b.
      Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.








/s/
      Luo Ken Yi


Luo
      Ken
      Yi


Chief
      Executive Officer


May
      15,
      2007