alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7341

MICHAEL A. WEBB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR BAILEY, Dentist; MISS MESSEN, Dental

Assistant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:06-cv-00345-gec-mf)

Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: January 30, 2007

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Webb, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

Ray was removed as a party on appeal.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Webb appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice

for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(6)(1). We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Webb v. Ray, 7:06-CV-00343-gec-mf (W.D. Va. June 6, 2006).*

We deny Webb’s motion for summary 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
Order entered March 21 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00162
- CV
IN RE DAVID BARNES , Relator
O riginal Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dal las County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 11
- 11126

O RDER Before Justices Osborne, Partida

- Kipness, and Smith Before the Court is relator ’ s March 1, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus in which he challenges the trial court ’ s “Order on Substitution of Fai th and Liberty’s Place,” “Order for Supervised Visitation,” and “Temporary Order for Father Supervised Possession and Access at Faith and Liberty’s Place

. ” R elator ’ s petition fail s to mention that this Court already denied his mandamus petition challen ging the trial court ’ s November 17, 2021 or al ruling

. See In re B arnes , No. 05

- 21

- 01042

- CV, 2021 WL 581733 3, at *1 (Tex . App.

— Dallas Dec. 7, 2021 , orig. proceed ing ) (finding no abuse of d iscretion). It appears that t he November 17, 2021 oral ru ling , which was memorialized in the challenged wr itten orders, setvirtually the same possession schedule that relator co mplain s about here. I n

addition to failing to mention this Court ’ s December 7, 2021 opinion , relator al so has not explain ed why a different outcome wou ld be warranted here

. Accordingly, p ursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate P rocedure 52.11, we ORDER relator to file , by March 24, 2022 , a response showing cause why this Court should not impose sanc tions on him for filing a petition that is : (1) clearly
groun d less ; and (2) grossly misstates or omits an obviously important and material fact in the petition

.
/s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA

- KIPNESS JUSTICE
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, John Sakys ChiefExecutive Officer, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K/A-1 for Isonics Corporation(the “Registrant”) for the year ended April 30, 2007;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The Registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant andhave:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant is made known to us by others, particularly during the periodin which this annual report is being prepared;

(b)         intentionally omitted perSEC Rel. 33-8238;

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The Registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions);

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| August 28, 2007                     |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ JOHN SAKYS                           |   |
| John Sakys                               |   |
| *Chief  Executive Officer and President* |   |

 

----
Presidential Documents

24133 

Federal Register 

Vol. 73, No. 85 

Thursday, May 1, 2008 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8247 of April 29, 2008 

Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, 2008 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Americans who trace their ancestry to Asia and the Pacific Islands have 

contributed much to our Nation. During Asian/Pacific American Heritage 

Month, we highlight their importance to our great Nation. 

Asian/Pacific Americans have made our country better with their talents 

and hard work. Their values and commitment to family and community 

have helped shape and strengthen America. These citizens speak many 

languages, honor countless traditions, and practice different faiths, but they 

are bound by a shared commitment to freedom and liberty. The diversity 

among Asian/Pacific Americans adds to the cultural fabric of our society. 

Asian/Pacific Americans have enriched our culture, excelling in many fields, 

including education, business, science, technology, government, sports, and 

the arts. We especially honor those Asian/Pacific Americans who have answered the call to protect the cause of freedom by serving in our Armed 

Forces. These brave men and women set a powerful example for all Americans. 

As we celebrate Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, we are reminded 

of the richness of the Asian and Pacific cultures. Asian/Pacific Americans 

enhance the American experience and contribute to our country’s legacy 

of diversity. 

To honor the achievements and contributions of Asian/Pacific Americans, 

the Congress, by Public Law 102–450, as amended, has designated the month 

of May each year as ‘‘Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month.’’ 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, do hereby proclaim May 2008 as Asian/Pacific American Heritage 

Month. I call upon the people of the United States to learn more about 

the history of Asian/Pacific Americans and their many contributions to 

our Nation and to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with MISCELLANEOUS
24134 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 85 / Thursday, May 1, 2008 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth 

day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the 

Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtysecond. 

[FR Doc. 08–1208 

Filed 4–30–08; 11:26 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with MISCELLANEOUSGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5637 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the unlawful disposal 

of fetal remains, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2018 

Mr. LATTA (for himself, Mr. RENACCI, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. TURNER, Mr. 

GIBBS, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. DAVIDSON, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. ROE of 

Tennessee, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. JONES, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. 

MOONEY of West Virginia, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. 

WENSTRUP, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. WESTERMAN, 

Mr. HARPER, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. 

FLORES, Mr. BANKS of Indiana, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. 

OLSON, Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia, and Mrs. HARTZLER) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 

unlawful disposal of fetal remains, 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 ‘‘Protecting the Dignity 

5 of Unborn Children Act of 2018’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5637 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF FETAL RE2 MAINS. 

3 (a) PROHIBITING UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF FETAL

4 REMAINS.—Part I of title 18, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘CHAPTER 125—UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF 

7 FETAL REMAINS 

8 ‘‘SEC. 2741. UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF FETAL REMAINS. 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever recklessly disposes of 

10 or abandons fetal remains in a landfill or in any of the 

11 navigable waters of the United States shall be imprisoned 

12 not more than 3 years or fined under this title, or both. 

13 ‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec14 tion shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any 

15 woman for the disposal of the remains of her unborn child. 

16 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

17 ‘‘(1) FETAL REMAINS.—The term ‘fetal re18 mains’ means any part of a human fetus that is de19 ceased by reason of an abortion, but does not in20 clude any such part that has been cremated. 

21 ‘‘(2) LANDFILL.—The term ‘landfill’ means a 

22 sanitary landfill, as such term is defined in section 

23 1004(26) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. 

24 ‘‘(3) NAVIGABLE WATERS.—The term ‘navi25 gable waters’ has the meaning given such term in 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5637 IH

1 section 502(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Con2 trol Act.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters 

4 for such part is amended by inserting, after the item per5 taining to chapter 123, the following: 

‘‘125. Unlawful disposal of fetal remains ................................................ 2741’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

GREGORY ROLAND,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-36-MP-GRJ

JERRY B. MILLER,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on the Court’s civil

rights complaint form for pro se litigants in actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1346 or

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 4.) In the Court’s Order dated July 1, 2011, the Court deferred

ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 5) and directed the

Petitioner to file a Second Amended Petition on or before July 22, 2011. (Doc. 6.) On

August 15, 2011, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause on or

before September 2, 2011 why he failed to comply with the Court’s prior order. (Doc. 7.) 

Plaintiff has failed to respond to either of this Court’s orders. (Docs. 6, 7.)

Accordingly, for these reasons, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this cause

should be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court

order.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 26th day of September 2011.

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00036-MP-GRJ Document 8 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a

copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific

objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations.

Case No: 1:11-cv-36-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00036-MP-GRJ Document 8 Filed 09/26/11 Page 2 of 2
Miller, Diane M.

From:

Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 4:42 PM

To: NIOCINDOCKET@CDC.GOV

Subject: Comments on Proposed Rule Change for SEC

My father, worked at Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Destrahan Plant, during the years 1943-1968. He

did his patriotic duty working with nuclear hazards for the Manhattan Project and suffered for years from various
environmental diseases and died of bladder cancer because of his exposure to these chemicals and agents. I
don't believe NIOSH can dose reconstruct anything from my dad's records for a number of reasons, but these are
some major ones below:

1 There is not sufficient dose information on these workers. Some valid workers aren't even on the employee lists
that NIOSH is using. 2 Multiple worksite, multiple exposure and multiple job title employees cannot be dose
reconstructed with accuracy. My dad worked as a pipefitter and chemical operator in different buildings and sites.
3 Dad was not monitored for many of the elements (alpha and beta particle radiation, silica, thorium,
beryllium,etc) he was exposed to, so his records can't possibly be dose-reconstructed for these elements now. 4
Mallinckrodt actually admitted its culpability in 1981. Three Mile Island settlement put aside 3 million dollars for
MCW workers studies. The judgement that came down set a precedent that any amount of radiation causes
cancer. 5 There is a huge conflict of interest at Oak Ridge Associated Universities (run by DOE), where all the
MCW records are stored. 6 There are insufficient health physicists working on these projects. They can't Possibly
dose reconstruct all these records. 7 Workers at MCW were unknowingly exposed to extremely hazardous agents
because Mallinckrodt and the Federal Government didn't want to accept responsibility for their health-related
problems. | have heard foremen who are still alive say this and have read documents that show this to be true. 8
Safety officers at MCW's Destrahan plant and at Weldon Springs were not hired until several years after the
workers had started working on the Manhattan Project and been unduly exposed to very hazardous substances
that they knew little or nothing about. 9 Co-worker data is not valid for this kind of exposure. NIOSH told us they
could dose-reconstruct from co-worker data. This is outrageous. 10 Alll of us in dad's family were also
unknowingly exposed to hazardous chemicals because these agents were all over his body, hair and clothes.
These chemicals penetrated everything. Even his street clothes locker in the plant was not sealed off and thus
exposed to these chemicals. Another whole group of people related to these workers have also been exposed to
these nuclear elements. For example, my mother and I have also suffered from cancers and diseases that most
probably resulted from our exposures. My dad's type of exposure can result in DNA mutations that will be with us
and our progeny.
EXHIBIT 31.1  Rule 13(a)-14(a)/15(d)-14(a) Certification  I, Ronald Mumford, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on

Form 10-QSB/A

for the period ended March 31, 2008 of Pacific Edge Publishing, 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 made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and  15d-15(e) and have:  a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions after 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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  June 11, 2008

          By: /s/ Ronald Mumford Ronald Mumford, President, Principal Executive Officer and Director
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 NanoTech Entertainment, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ted D.
Campbell II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that;





(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 the
Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





/s/ Ted D. Campbell IIName: 
      Ted D.
      Campbell IITitle:   Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:   May
      24, 2010
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





The
undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Rongfu
Aquaculture, Inc. (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of his or her knowledge:




(1)
            The
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2010 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 the
      Company.





Dated:
December 22, 2010




/s/ Keith HorKeith
      HorChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Rongfu Aquaculture, Inc. and will be retained by Rongfu Aquaculture, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# C_2010355EN.01002401.xml

| 29.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/24

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5952 — CPPIB/Onex/Tomkins)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 355/04

On 10 September 2010, 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:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5952. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5952. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---