alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT/SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Attorney: MYERS & GALIARDO, LLP

DARRYL AMIKER

Plaintiff(s)

Index # 07 CV 3554 (PATTERSON)

-against -

Purchased May 3, 2007

THE CITY OF NY, ETAL

Defendant( s )

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ss

ANDERSON CHAN BEING DUL Y SWORN DEPOSES AND SAYS DEPONENT IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS ACTION, OVER THE AGE

OF EIGHTEEN YEARS AND RESIDES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

That on May 17, 2007 at 01 :40 PM at

NARCOTIC BORO

MANHATTAN NORTH

1 POLICE PLAZA

ROOM 1100

NEW YORK, NY 10038

deponent served the within SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT on P .0. ORLANDO PEREZ therein named,

SUITABLE by delivering thereat a true copy of each to MR. PAYNE a person of suitable age and discretion. Said premises is

AGE Defendant's actual place of business within the state. He identified himself as the CO-WORKER of the Defendant

Deponent further states that he describes the person actually served as follows

Skin Color

BROWN

Hair Color

BALD

Age (Approx.)

40

Sex Height (Approx.) Weight (Approx)

MALE 6'0 200

Deponent enclosed a copy of same in a postpaid wrapper properly addressed to the Defendant at the Defendant's actual

place of business at

MAILING

NARCOTIC BORO

MANHATTAN NORTH

1 POLICE PLAZA

ROOM 1100

NEW YORK, NY 10038

and deposited said wrapper in a post office or official depository under exclusive care and custody of the United States

Postal Service within New York State on May 17, 2007 by REGULAR FIRST CLASS MAIL in an envelope marked

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL and not indicating on the outside thereof, by return address or otherwise, that the

communication is from an attorney or concerns an action against the person to be served.

Person spoken to was asked whether the Defendant was in the military service of the State of New York or the United

States and received a negative reply. Upon information and belief based upon the conversation and observation as

aforesaid deponent avers that the Defendant is not in the military service of the State of New York or the United States as

that term is defined in the statutes of the State of New York or the Federal Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act.

MILITARY

SERVICE

That at the time of such service deponent knew the person so served as aforesaid to be the same person mentioned and

described as the Defendant in this action.

-""'" ~

Sworn \to me on: May 1.,7, \

SPli'~TH JONATHAN GRABER

of New York Notary Public, State of New York AfjlbERSON CHAN

No. 01GR6156780 .

.-'--',. Qualified in New York County license #: 1220482

--l Comm.Expires December 4, 2010 Invoice#: 440140

.OOR, 315 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, NY 10007- (212) 619-0728

JOELGRABER

Notary Public, State of New York

No. 02GR4699723

Qualified in New York County

Comm. Expires February 10, 2010

UNITED PROCESS

Case 1:07-cv-03554-RPP Document 4 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### COZART v. CHAPIN

No. 73 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 503.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 May 1979.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



I, John Bristow, Chief Executive Officer of Rockwell Diamonds
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

(1)          
The Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended May 31,
2007 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

By:       /s/ J. Bristow
           
_______________________________________________Name: John Bristow
Title:   Chief Executive Officer

Date:   December 14, 2007



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10989

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BERTON SHAWN PAYNE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-37-2

Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Berton Shawn 

Payne has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Payne has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 17, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10989 Document: 00512665982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2014
No. 13-10989

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-10989 Document: 00512665982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KEVIN ANTHONY MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-38/MW/EMT

MIKE HARRIS and

WARDEN MARK HENRY,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

The Court has considered the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, 

ECF No.88, filed March 1, 2013. The Court has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s 

Objection to Report and Recommendation of Magistrate, ECF No.89, filed March 

15, 2013. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court’s 

opinion and this Court notes the following. 

Plaintiff attempts to avoid the application of the statute of limitations by 

seeking shelter under the Heck accrual rule. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

489-90 (1994). Heck, however, does not apply. Heck prohibits an action under § 
42 U.S.C. 1983 if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the 

invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” “unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that 

the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. at 487.

Here, neither the conviction nor sentence is implicated. The thrust of 

Plaintiff’s argument is that the status of being a sex offender and the associated 

registration requirements implicate his “sentence” for purposes of Heck. Contrary 

to Plaintiff’s view, the Supreme Court has made clear that the word “sentence” as 

used in Heck refers to “substantive determinations as to the length of 

confinement.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 83 (2005). It is for this reason 

that Heck’s application has logically extended to cases involving deprivation of 

gain time as a result of disciplinary proceedings. See, e.g., Edwards v. Balisok, 

520 U.S. 641, 645-48 (1997). Inasmuch the length of Plaintiff’s confinement is not 

implicated, Heck has no application in this case. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Defendants’ motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED; judgment is entered in favor of Defendants.” The Clerk shall close 

the file.

SO ORDERED on March 19, 2013.

s/Mark E. Walker

United States District Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7914

RODNEY MOUCELL JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JONATHAN E. OZMINT,

Director of the South Carolina Department of

Corrections; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney

General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-05-865-0)

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Moucell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General; Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Moucell Jones, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation to dismiss Jones’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition

as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken from the final order

in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, 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
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 11 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 11 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 11 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 11 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 11 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 11 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 11 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 11 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 11 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 9 of 9
#### STATE v. HOOD

No. 177 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 139.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 February 1975.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2083 

To amend chapter 2205 of title 36, United States Code, to ensure pay 

equity for amateur athletes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 10, 2019 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 2205 of title 36, United States Code, 

to ensure pay equity for amateur athletes, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Athletics Fair Pay Act 

5 of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PAY EQUITY FOR AMATEUR ATHLETES. 

7 (a) EQUITABLE COMPENSATION.—Section 220524(6) 

8 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by inserting 

9 ‘‘, wages and other compensation,’’ after ‘‘support’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2083 IS

1 (b) REPORTS ON PAY EQUITY.— 

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 

3 2205 of such title is amended by adding at the end 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘§ 220530A. Reports on pay equity 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Each national governing body 

7 shall submit to Congress a report on the compensation of 

8 amateur athletes in the sport governed by the national 

9 governing body for— 

10 ‘‘(1) each of the two consecutive calendar years 

11 ending immediately before the date of the enactment 

12 of this section; and 

13 ‘‘(2) each calendar year beginning after the 

14 date of the enactment of this section. 

15 ‘‘(b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—Each report re16 quired by subsection (a) shall include, with respect to the 

17 applicable sport, for the calendar year covered by the re18 port— 

19 ‘‘(1) the median compensation for amateur ath20 letes, disaggregated by race and gender; and 

21 ‘‘(2) the minimum and maximum compensation 

22 paid to amateur athletes, disaggregated by race and 

23 gender.’’. 

24 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of 

25 sections for chapter 2205 of title 36, United States 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2083 IS

1 Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing: 

‘‘Sec. 220530A. Reports on pay equity.’’. 

3 (c) RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amend4 ment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date 

5 that is 2 years before the date of the enactment of this 

6 Act. 

7 (d) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this Act, an 

8 amendment made by this Act, or the application of such 

9 provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is 

10 held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and 

11 the amendments made by this Act, and the application of 

12 the provision or amendment to any other person or cir13 cumstance, shall not be affected. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
31.1





CERTIFICATION








I, Oscar
Rodriguez, CEO, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Abazias, Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial 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. I am
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 we 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 is made known to us by others
within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which this annual
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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and





5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





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.





Date:
March 31, 2008





/s/ Oscar
Rodriguez


Oscar
Rodriguez


CEO
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 3-2 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 3-2 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 3-2 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 3-2 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 3-2 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 3-2 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 3-2 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 3-2 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 3-2 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 3-2 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 10 of 10
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                            IVAX Diagnostics, Inc.
                            2140 North Miami Avenue
                             Miami, Florida 33127

April 1, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Ivax Diagnostics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), has
received a representation letter from Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"), the
Company's independent public accountants, in connection with the issuance of
Andersen's audit report included with this filing on Form 10-K.  In its letter,
Andersen has represented to us that its audit of the consolidated balance sheets
of the Company and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, was
subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards and that there was
appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit, availability
of national office consultation and availability of personnel at foreign
affiliates of Andersen to conduct relevant portions of the audit.

                                             Very truly yours,

                                             /s/ Mark Deutsch

                                             Mark Deutsch
                                             Vice President-Finance and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-03556-LTS Document 8 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5241

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ROGER MIKEL SMALLWOOD, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00065-sgw-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Fay F. Spence, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Jeb T. Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Roger Mikel Smallwood pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and was sentenced to 135 months in prison, well below the advisory guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. Smallwood appeals, arguing that his variance sentence is unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, , 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the [g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 591. In imposing a variance sentence, the district court “must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is significantly compelling to support the degree of the variance. . . . [I]t [is] uncontroversial that a major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.” Id. at 597. The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Smallwood, appropriately treating the guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the

23 applicable guidelines range, performing an individualized assessment of the § 3553(a) factors to the facts of the case, and stating in open court the reasons for the sentence. United

States v. Carter , 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Smallwood argued for a variance sentence and received one. The court articulated its reasons for the variance--the delay in prosecution, the sentences of Smallwood’s co-defendants, and Smallwood’s rehabilitative efforts--and weighed these factors against the seriousness of the offense, the large quantity of drugs foreseeable to Smallwood, and his role in the conspiracy. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14852-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13