alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2247
CYNTHIA P. HUMPHRIES, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-03-426) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cynthia P. Humphries, Appellant Pro Se. Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Sharon Coull Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Cynthia P. Humphries, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant and denying relief on her civil action alleging claims of employment discrimination under Title VII. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Humphries v. Principi , No. CA-03-426 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 2005). 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
#### SHERIFF, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, Appellant, v. JERRY DONALD ROBERTSON and ROBERT DUANE ROWEN, Respondents.

No. 7794

October 10, 1974

526 P.2d 1178

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert E. Rose,*District Attorney, and *Jack Alian,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Appellant.

*Douglas G. Lohse,*of Reno, for Respondent Robertson.

*G. C. Backus,*of Reno, for Respondent Rowen.

*366OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Respondents were charged with burglary. When the case was submitted to the jury the trial judge was of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction, and so instructed the jury. The instruction, in compliance with the language of NRS 175.381, concluded with the words “the jury is not bound by this advice.”

One or more of the jurors declined to acquit, resulting in a “hung jury.”

When the case was scheduled for another trial respondents filed a petition for habeas corpus, contending retrial would place them in double jeopardy because of the instruction that there was insufficient evidence to convict given at their first trial. The trial court granted their petition for habeas and on this appeal the sole question we need resolve is whether retrial is permissible where a nonbinding instruction to acquit is rejected by the jury.

This court has consistently approved the nonbinding effect of an advised verdict, prescribed by NRS 175.381. Cook v. State, 74 Nev. 51, 321 P.2d 587 (1958); State v. Corinblit, 72 Nev. 202, 298 P.2d 470 (1956).

This court also has consistently held that retrial after a “hung jury” does not constitute double jeopardy. See, for example, Wheeler v. District Court, 82 Nev. 225, 415 P.2d 63 (1966).

The order granting habeas corpus is reversed.
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF WMS INDUSTRIES INC.



The following is a list of all direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company and their jurisdictions of incorporation as of June 30, 2006. The name
of each indirect subsidiary is indented under the name of its parent company.



|                                     |  |                                        
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                           |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation/Formation
|WMS Gaming Inc.                      |  | Delaware                               
|WMS Gaming (Canada) Ltd.             |  | New Brunswick, Canada                  
|WMS Gaming International, S.L.       |  | Spain                                  
|WMS Gaming Australia PTY Ltd.        |  | Australia                              
|WMS Gaming Africa (Pty) Ltd.         |  | South Africa                           
|WMS Gaming (UK) Limited              |  | United Kingdom                         
|WMS Gaming Slovakia, s.r.o.          |  | Slovakia                               
|Lenc-Smith Inc.                      |  | Delaware                               
|Williams Electronics Games, Inc.     |  | Delaware                               
|WMS Finance Inc.                     |  | Delaware                               
|WMS International (Netherlands) Inc. |  | Delaware
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40746

(Summary Calendar)

FREDDY L. WALKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BAPTIST HOSPITAL-ORANGE TEXAS; TERRY

WILLIAMS, Director of Support Services;

BUDDY BROWN, Head of Department of

Maintenance; MIKE DANIELS, Supervisor of

Engineering,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:97-CV-662)

-------------------- July 12, 2000

Before POLITZ, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Freddy L. Walker appeals from the district

court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his action against

Defendant s-Appellees. In connection with his appeal, Walker has

filed a motion with this court fo r leave to file an offer of

settlement of claims. We deny his motion and affirm the judgment

of the district court.2 I.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

After being fired from his maintenance job by Baptist

Hospital, Orange, Walker sued the hos pital and the other

Defendants-Appellees, claiming racial discrimination in his firing

as well as false imprisonment and defamation. He was fired

immediately after being charged with stealing food fr om the

hospital c afeteria. Walker insists, however, that he was fired

because of an altercation he had had with the cafeteria supervisor

several weeks earlier, after which he had refused to sign a writeup. He also alleges that he was set up by a cafeteria worker who,

like Walker, is black, when that worker gave him permission to take

the subject food item then denied it. Walker avers that this

particular cafeteria worker had a pattern of setting up her fellow

black co-workers for termination.

The district court dismissed Walker’s claims of false

imprisonment and defamation as time barred. Its grant of summary

judgment dismissing the racial discrimination claim was grounded in

Walker’s failure to establish a prima facie case and, in the

alternative, on the absence of proof of any racial component in the

bases that Walker asserts as the hospital’s real reasons for firing

him.

II.

ANALYSIS

We have carefully considered the operable facts and applicable

law in this case as reflected in the record on appeal, the briefs3

filed by the parties, and the Amended Memorandum Opinion of the

district court. As a result, we are convinced that the district

c ourt committed no reversible error in granting summary judgment

and, indeed, correctly granted that j udgment dismissing Walker’s

claims for the right reason. Even though our review is d e novo

, we

conclude that nothing would be gained by writing separately. We

therefore affirm the judgment and all rulings of the district court

for the reasons set forth in the thorough and craftsmanlike opinion

of that court. We also deny all pending motions, including without

limitation Walker’s motion for leave to file a motion for offer of

settlement.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Edward L. Williams, Interim Chief Financial Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Telos Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement 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 annual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual 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 annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

 

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

 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer 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 registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 14, 2004
#### ELECTRO LIFT v. EQUIPMENT CO.

No. 50 PC.

Case below: 4 N.C. App. 203.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 19 May 1969.
|     |                                                                                                                         |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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 the Company. |

|                        |
|------------------------|
|                        |  |
| /s/   Abu M. Arif      |
| Name:                  | Abu M. Arif |
| Title:                 | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
| Date:                  | August 3, 2015 |
|                   |
|                   |
| /s/   Ross P. Palacios |
| Name:                  | Ross P. Palacios |
| Title:                 | Chief Financial Officer |
|                   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
| Date:                  | August 3, 2015 |
|     |                                                                                                                         |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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 the Company. |

|                        |
|------------------------|
|                        |  |  |
| Date: May 5, 2016 | By | /s/ Abu M. Arif |
|                   |   | Abu M. Arif |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                   |   |   |
| Date: May 5, 2016 | By | /s/ Janet C. Langner |
|                   |   | Janet C. Langner |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                   |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We have issued our report dated March 22, 2018, with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Caladrius Biosciences, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. We consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Caladrius Biosciences, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-196702, File No. 333-206175, File No. 333-210664, 333-214607 and File No. 333-220354) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-107438, File No. 333-144265, File No. 333-159282, File No. 333-162733, File No. 333-173854, File No. 333-181365, File No. 333- 184927, File No. 333-191572, File No. 333-205662, File No. 333-212202, File No. 333-215455, File No. 333-218642 and File No. 333-222410) .








/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP








New York, New York


March 22, 2018
# C_2007207EN.01000101.xml

| 6.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4659 — TF1/Artémis/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 207/01)

On 29 August 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 French 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 32007M4659. 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 32007M4659. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# L_2007153EN.01002501.xml

| 14.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 153/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 153/25

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 654/2007

of 13 June 2007

on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).

| (2) | Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t.

| (3) | It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 June 2007 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 June 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 June 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 317/2007 (OJ L 84, 24.3.2007, p. 4).

2

---
#### McARVER v. POUND & MOORE, INC.

No. 141 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 87.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of of Appeals denied 6 March 1973.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             902
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                       300
<INVENTORY>                                        352
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,058
<PP&E>                                          12,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,162
<SALES>                                          4,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,027
<CGS>                                            2,557
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,557
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,148
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    322
<INCOME-TAX>                                       138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                184
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       184
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
#### Lawrence MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 569 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

Nos. 04-55459, 04-55466.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Lawrence Moore, La Jolla, CA, pro se.

*157Lewis N. Levy, Esq., Levy, Goldman *&*Levy, Los Angeles, CA, Melissa W. Cook, Esq., Lindsay J. Hulley, Esq., Kissane & Cook, Jennifer T. Messersmith, Gattey & Messersmith, San Diego, CA, Terry R. Yellig, Sherman, Cohen & Dunn, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lawrence Moore appeals pro se the district court’s order vacating his renewals of judgments in two related actions against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s findings of fact for clear' error, *Concrete Pipe & Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California,*508 U.S. 602, 623, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not clearly err by vacating Moore’s renewals of judgments because the record reflects that the IBEW posted supersedeas bonds in excess of each judgment entered against them in these two related actions. *See*Cal.Civ. Proc.Code § 724.010.

The district court also did not err in finding that the defendants’ motions to vacate Moore’s renewals of judgments were timely.

Moore’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.