alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Appellant, v. LUSBY MARSHALL, Jr., Respondent.

No. 12471

March 28, 1980

608 P.2d 1101

*305
      *Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert J. Miller,*District Attorney, and *Gregory C. Diamond,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellant.

*George Foley,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On December 26, 1979, respondent filed a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition challenged probable cause. The petition did not contain the waiver and consents required by NRS 34.375(l)(b). Such a petition may not be considered. Sheriff v. Chumphol, 95 Nev. 818, 603 P.2d 690 (1979); NRS 34.375(1); 34.380(4)(a). Nevertheless, the district court granted the petition and the state has appealed.

We do not reach the merits of the appeal because the habeas petition was not cognizable in the district court. Accordingly, we reverse. This proceeding is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the petition. *See*Sheriff v. Chumphol, *supra.*
#### NANCY R. KENNEDY SURRATT v. JOHN B. KENNEDY

No. 7518DC889

(Filed 5 May 1976)

Divorce and Alimony § 22— child custody — jurisdiction of proceeding

In a divorce action where plaintiff also sought custody of the minor children, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to *407dismiss made on the ground that he had instituted an independent child custody action in the district court of another county, since the court in which the question was first raised retained jurisdiction of the issue.

Appeal by defendant from *Washington, Judge.*Judgment entered 28 May 1975 in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 February 1976.

Plaintiff instituted this action in the District Court in Guil-ford County seeking a divorce on the grounds of one year’s separation. In her verified complaint filed 11 March 1975, in addition to allegations concerning residence of the parties, their marriage on 19 June 1959, their separation on 6 January 1974, and that they lived separate and apart for more than one year, plaintiff alleged she was a fit and proper person to have custody of the three minor children born of the marriage. In her prayer for relief she asked for an absolute divorce and that custody of the three children be awarded to her. On 26 March 1975 defendant filed his verified answer in which he admitted all allegations in the complaint and in which he joined in plaintiff’s prayer for relief. On 26 March 1975 judgment was entered in the District Court in Guilford County granting plaintiff an absolute divorce. This judgment made no reference to custody of the children.

On 5 May 1975 plaintiff served notice on defendant that she was applying in this Guilford County action for an order awarding her custody of the three children. At a hearing held 29 May 1975 defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b) on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction in that on 15 April 1975 he had filed an independent action against the plaintiff herein in the District Court in Randolph County wherein he was seeking custody of the children.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Guilford County action was denied, and defendant appealed.

*Clarence C. Boyan for plaintiff appellee.*

*Bell and Ogburn, P.A. by Deane N. Bell and William H. Heafner for defendant appellant.*

PARKER, Judge.

The allegations and prayer for custody in the pleadings brought the question of custody to issue in this action even *408though the question was not determined in the divorce decree. Therefore, for the reasons stated by Brock, Chief Judge, in opinion filed this date in *Kennedy v. Surratt,*Case No. 7519DC888, which was an appeal from an order entered in the Randolph County action, the District Court in Guilford County retained jurisdiction in this action of the question of custody of the minor children of the parties. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly denied. The order appealed from is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Hedrick concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7541
MARION BEASLEY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D.G. WOOD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-cv-00850-NCT) Submitted: April 3, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Beasley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Marion Beasley, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Beasley v. Wood , No. 1:05-cv-00850-NCT (M.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 2007). Moreover, although not specifically addressed by the district court, Beasley’s claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Pub. L. No. 106-274, 114 Stat. 804, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) (2000) (“RLUIPA”), may be dismissed for the same reasons as his § 1983 claim. See Lovelace v. Lee , 472 F.3d 174, 185-86 (4th Cir. 2006). 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
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement No. 33-48363 on Form S-8 filed June 3, 1992,
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Registration Statement No. 333-06021 on Form S-8 filed June 14, 1996,
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|(3) | Registration Statement No. 333-57585 on Form S-8 filed June 24, 1998,
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|(4) | Registration Statement No. 333-46726 on Form S-8 filed September 27, 2000,
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(5) | Registration Statement No. 333-55574 on Form S-8 filed February 14, 2001,
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(6) | Registration Statement No. 333-101538 on Form S-8 filed November 27, 2002,
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(7) | Registration Statement No. 333-107321 on Form S-3 filed July 25, 2003,
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



|(8) | Registration Statement No. 333-121199 on Form S-8 filed December 13, 2004, and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(9) | Registration Statement No. 333-121766 on Form S-8 filed December 30, 2004 and in the related Prospectuses of WMS Industries Inc.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



of our reports dated September 6, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of WMS Industries Inc., WMS Industries Inc. managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of WMS Industries
Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2005.



|                 
|-----------------
|Chicago, Illinois
|September 8, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Earick Mann DORSEY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7770.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 9, 2005.

Decided April 5, 2005.

Earick Mann Dorsey, Appellant pro se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Earick Mann Dorsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dorsey has not made the requisite showing. *501Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Manuel R. SUAREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHAIRMAN OF the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF the FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civ. No. 87-1426(PG).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Nov. 16, 1988.

ORDER

PEREZ-GIMENEZ, Chief Judge.

The Court has very carefully studied “Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration And Request For Evidentiary Hearing” and has come to the conclusion that sufficient argument, supported by appropriate jurisprudence, has been presented so as to merit a reconsideration of our Opinion and Order of August 24, 1988, 692 F.Supp. 43. Wherefore, in view of the above, the Court rules as follows:

1. Our order, granting in part, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under Executive Order 11478, remains in full force and effect;

2. The rest of our Opinion and Order of August 24, 1988, is hereby vacated;

3. The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing to consider the following matters:

> a. whether plaintiff can establish equitable tolling;

> b. the parties’ position as to the propriety of the Court adopting the statements made by the EEO counselor;

> c. the parties’ position as to the Court taking judicial notice of the case of *Franco v. FDIC,*Civ. No. 87-1462(CC), and *Cabrero v. FDIC,*Civ. No. 87-1268(GG);

> d. whether the FDIC was obliged by law or regulation to make its employees aware of the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM);

> e. assuming plaintiffs were misled, did they exercise due diligence in pursuing their legal rights;

> f.whether plaintiffs failed to properly serve the United States within the statutory period, and if they did, should the Court find “good cause” for their failure to do so.

4.The evidentiary hearing is set for December 1, 1988, at 10:00 A.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5188 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the first-time 

homebuyer tax credit through December 31, 2010, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2010 

Mr. HINCHEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the first-time homebuyer tax credit through December 

31, 2010, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER CRED4 IT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 36(h) of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘May 1, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2011’’. 

8 (b) BINDING CONTRACT EXCEPTION.—Paragraph 

9 (2) of section 36(h) of such Code is amended— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5188 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘May 1, 2010’’ each place it ap2 pears and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2011’’, and 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘July 1, 2010’’ each place it ap4 pears and inserting ‘‘May 1, 2011’’. 

5 (c) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIVIDUALS ON QUALIFIED

6 OFFICIAL EXTENDED DUTY OUTSIDE THE UNITED

7 STATES.—Paragraph (3) of section 36(h) of such Code 

8 is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘May 1, 2010’’ in the matter 

10 preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting ‘‘January 

11 1, 2011’’, 

12 (2) by striking ‘‘ ‘May 1, 2011’ for ‘May 1, 

13 2010’ ’’ and inserting ‘‘ ‘January 1, 2012’ for ‘Janu14 ary 1, 2011’ ’’, and 

15 (3) by striking ‘‘ ‘July 1, 2011’ for ‘July 1, 

16 2010’ ’’ and inserting ‘‘ ‘May 1, 2012’ for ‘May 1, 

17 2011’ ’’. 

18 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to residences purchased after April 

20 30, 2010. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                   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 Annual Report of Pulitzer Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan G.
Silverglat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information
         contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
         financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                   -------------------
                                   Alan G. Silverglat
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   March 4, 2004


                                       2
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10205 and # 10206] 

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 6.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1607-DR), dated September 24, 2005. 

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Rita.                     

*Incident Period:*                         September 23, 2005 and continuing.                     

*Effective Date:*                         October 18, 2005.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         November 23, 2005.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         June 26, 2006.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, Disaster Assistance Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana, dated September 24, 2005, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 
      ( print page 62010)    
*Primary Parish:*                     Saint Tammany.                 

*Contiguous Parishes/Counties:*

Louisiana: Washington. Mississippi: Hancock, Pearl River. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 05-21445 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.3


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Banknote Corporation (the
Company ) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steven G. Singer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 USC. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                            /s/ Steven G. Singer
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Steven G. Singer
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Date: November 15, 2004
# C_2007094EN.01002001.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/20

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4500 — Nemak/TK Aluminum ‘A’)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 94/06)

On 3 April 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4500. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4500. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# C_2007300EN.01000301.xml

| 12.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4817 — Aviva Italia Holding SpA/Banco Popolare Soc. Coop./Novara Assicura SpA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 300/02)

On 6 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4817. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4817. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
EXHIBIT 31.4


CERTIFICATION OF


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Kevin S. Royal, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, 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; and


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.








October 10, 2013/S/    KEVINS. ROYALKevin S. RoyalSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>   1

                 CONSENT OF CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES INC.

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                                  [LETTERHEAD]

                                 March 21, 2001

Permian Basin Royalty Trust
Bank of America, N.A., Trustee
901 Main Street
Dallas, Texas

Gentlemen:

     Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil
and gas reserve information in the Permian Basin Royalty Trust Securities and
Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2000 and in the
Permian Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ending December 31, 2000,
based on reserve reports dated March 20, 2001 prepared by Cawley, Gillespie &
Associates, Inc.


                                 Submitted,

                                      /s/ CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES
                                 --------------------------------------------
                                          CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.