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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6415

WAYNE THOMAS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SUE MEDFORD, Nurse Supervisor at Marion

Correctional Institution, in her official and

individual capacity; SID HARKLEROAD,

Superintendent at Marion Correctional

Institution, in his official and individual

capacity; ANGELA TWITTY, in her official and

individual capacity; JANE DOE, in her official

and individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-02-1-1-MU)

Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 7, 2002

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Thomas Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Thomas Johnson appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001)

complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Medford, No. CA02-1-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2002). 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
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


        CERTIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Chester Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Welge,
Chairman, President and 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 result of operations of the
Company.


March 26, 2003                         /s/ Michael W. Welge
                                       -----------------------
                                       Michael W. Welge
                                       Chairman, President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
SMITHSONIAN DIRECTIVE 103,

Appendix 1,

August 10, 2016,

Date Last Declared Current: March 30, 2020

FOURTEEN PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL 

CONDUCT FOR SMITHSONIAN EMPLOYEES

(1) Smithsonian service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to 

the Smithsonian, the law, and ethical principles above private gain.

(2) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious 

performance of duty.

(3) Employees shall not engage in financial transactions using nonpublic 

Smithsonian information or allow the improper use of such information to 

further any private interests.

(4) An employee shall not, except as permitted by the Smithsonian standards of 

conduct, solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any 

person or entity seeking official action from, doing business with, or whose 

interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance 

of the employee’s duties.

(5) Employees shall put forth honest effort in the performance of their duties.

(6) Employees shall not knowingly make unauthorized commitments or promises 

of any kind purporting to bind the Smithsonian.

(7) Employees shall not use their Smithsonian position for private gain.

(8) Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any 

private organization or individual.

(9) Employees shall protect and conserve Smithsonian property and shall not use 

it for other than authorized activities.

(10) Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including 

seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official Smithsonian 

duties and responsibilities.

(11) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate 

authorities.

(12) Employees shall satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens, including all 

financial obligations, especially those — such as federal, state, or local taxes

— that are imposed by law.
Smithsonian Directive 103, Appendix 1 

8/10/16

(13) Employees shall adhere to all laws, regulations, and policies that provide 

equitable treatment for all individuals regardless or race, color, national 

origin, religion, sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation.

(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that 

they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in the Smithsonian 

standards of conduct. Whether particular circumstances create an 

appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be

determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of 

the relevant facts.

2
[File No. 6178.]

#### W. E. MICHAELSOHN, Appellant, v. NORWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 12, of McHenry County, a Quasi-Municipal Corporation, Respondent.

(249 N. W. 776.)

Opinion filed July 29, 1933.

*684
      *L. J. Palda,*Jr., *C. E. Brace*and *Robert*W. Balda, for appellant.

*Neis G. Johnson*and *Albert*Weber, for respondent.

*685Birdzell, J.

This is an action to recover damages for the refusal of the defendant school corporation to execute a teacher’s contract with the plaintiff. The complaint alleges and the evidence shows that the defendant, in April, 1931, through its board of directors, offered to employ the plaintiff as principal for the school year of 1931-1932 at a salary of $2,050; and that thereafter the plaintiff accepted the offer, since which time he has been ready, willing and able to teach the school and to perform, as well as execute, a contract in writing; but that the defendant declined to execute a contract in writing, or to allow the plaintiff to enter upon the performance of his oral contract. The only question we need consider on the appeal is whether or not these facts form a legal basis of an action for damages against the defendant school district.

The statute outlining the powers of a school board with respect to the employment of teachers specifically provides (Comp. Laws 1913, § 1178) that “every contract for the employment of a teacher must be in writing and such contract must be executed before such teacher begins to teach in such school.” This statute is mandatory, and to hold that the school district could be held liable on account of having entered into an oral contract to execute a written contract would be to* deprive the statute of its force. We are not concerned with the reasons, which might have appealed to the legislature in fixing the requirement that teachers’ contracts must be in writing. Suffice it to say that substantial reasons for such requirement might well be found to exist. Where the law prescribes formalities for the formation of public contracts, such as a written contract, no contract is formed until this *686formality Las been complied with. Griggs v. School Dist. *87*Ark. 93, 112 S. W. 215; Edge Moor Bridge Works v. Bristol County, 170 Mass. 528, 49 N. E. 918; Voorhees, Public Schools, § 64; 1 Williston, Contr. § 31.

It follows that the action was properly dismissed and that the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Nuessle, Oh. «T., and Buuke, Cheistianson and Büee, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0165. BONNER v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL.

This case originated in magistrate court, which granted a writ of possession

against the defendants. Levi Bonner then filed an application for discretionary appeal to

this court. We lack jurisdiction.

“The only avenue of appeal available from the magistrate court judgment is

provided by OCGA § 15-10-41 (b) (1), which allowsfor a de novo appeal to the state or

superior court.” Handler v. Hulsey, 199 Ga. App. 751, 751 (406 SE2d 225) (1991). This

court thus may address magistrate court matters only ifthey already have been reviewed

by the state or superior court. See Westwind Corp. v. Washington Fed. S &L Assn., 195

Ga. App. 411, 411 (1) (393 SE2d 479) (1990).

The Georgia Constitution provides that “[a]ny court shall transfer to the

appropriate court in the state any civil case in which it determines that jurisdiction or

venue lies elsewhere.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. VIII; Bosma v. Gunter,

258 Ga. 664, 665 (373 SE2d 368) (1988). Accordingly, this matter is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Gwinnett County State Court. Any issues regarding the state

court’s jurisdiction must be resolved by that court in the first instance.

The state court should inquire into whether the order on appeal is a final,

appealable judgment. See Atlanta J’sInc. v. Houston Food Inc., 237 Ga. App. 415 (514

SE2d 216) (1999) implicitly overruled on other grounds, asrecognized in Smith v. Bell,

346 Ga. App. 152 (816 SE2d 698) (2018).

November 26, 2018
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/26/2018
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

*Time and Date:*                         12:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., June 23, 2010 (Closed).                    

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters To Be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Assessment of Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome,” FOA CK10-004.                    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Maurine Goodman, MA, MPH, Scientific Review Administrator, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-4737.                              ( print page 28626)    

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: May 6, 2010.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2010-12169 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
[No. 24480.

Department One.

June 26, 1933.]

#### W. J. McArthur, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Labor and Industries, *Respondent.*
      *1*

*Phil K. Eaton,*for appellant.

*The Attorney General*and *Browder Broion, Assistant,*for respondent.

Reported in 23 P. (2d) 417.

Mitchell, J.

W. J. McArthur, claiming he was injured while engaged as an employee in extrahazardous work, reported the accident to the department of labor and industries. Upon investigation, the supervisor of the department decided that the workman’s condition was not the result of an injury within the meaning of the workmen’s compensation act, and that there was no proof of an injury in the course of the employment. The claimant appealed to the joint hoard for a rehearing. A rehearing was had, which resulted in findings and an order sustaining the order of the supervisor. An appeal was taken to the superior court, which reversed the decision of the joint hoard of the department. The judgment of the superior court was affirmed on appeal to this court, the decision being reported in 168 Wash. 405, 12 P. (2d) 418. The effect of the decision, so far as our present inquiry is concerned, was that McArthur was entitled to some relief.

Upon the case going back to the department, the supervisor, upon further consideration, entered an order giving relief to the claimant and closing the claim. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the allowance made, took an appeal to the joint hoard, where, upon a hearing had, the joint hoard entered findings and an order sustaining the order of the supervisor and deciding “that the action of the supervisor in closing the claim he sustained.” The claimant then appealed to the superior court, where, upon stipulation of the parties, the cause was tried upon the certified records and files of the “department of labor and industries as filed in the superior court and cause, as provided by law.” The superior court made and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon which judgment was entered that the order of the joint board refusing to reopen the claim for further compensatory payments was *702affirmed, and that claimant’s petition be dismissed. The claimant has appealed.

The case is controlled by the facts. The decision of the supervisor of the department was against the appellant. The joint board of the department, upon a hearing wherein additional testimony was admitted, decided that the weight of the evidence was against the appellant. The superior court decided likewise. Our examination of the evidence and record satisfies us that it does not preponderate against those findings. The findings sustain and justify the judgment.

Affirmed.

Holcomb, Millakd, Main, and Blake, JJ., concur.
#### Radi Tamaseric, Respondent, v. Clinton Beckwith, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

         In connection with the Annual Report of Target Logistics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an
exhibit (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company for the periods reflected therein.


Date: September 8, 2005                 /s/ Stuart Hettleman
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Stuart Hettleman
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                        /s/ Philip J. Dubato
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Philip J. Dubato
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### Adon J. Hoffman, Appellant, v. Syracuse Rapid Transit Railway Company, Respondent.

Judgment of County Court reversed and judgment of Municipal Court affirmed, with costs in this court and County Court to plaintiff.

All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., and Robson, J., who dissented.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28321-28322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12095]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

May 13, 2010.
    The Department of Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the 
submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 
Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should 
be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department 
Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, and 1750 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 21, 2010 
to be assured of consideration.

Financial Management Service (FMS)

    OMB Number: 1510-0007.
    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved 
collection.
    Title: Direct Deposit Sign-Up Form and Go Direct Sign Up Form.

[[Page 28322]]

    Form: SF-1199A, FMS 1200.
    Abstract: The Direct Deposit Sign-Up Form is used by recipients to 
authorize the deposit of Federal payments into their accounts at 
financial institutions. The information is used to route the Direct 
Deposit payment to the correct account at the correct financial 
institution. It identifies persons who have executed the form.
    Respondents: Individuals and Households.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 69,142 hours.

    OMB Number: 1510-0066.
    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved 
collection.
    Title: 31 CFR Part 208--Management; Final Rule.
    Abstract: This regulation requires that most Federal payments be 
made by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT); sets forth waiver 
requirements; and provides for a low-cost Treasury-designated account 
to individuals at a financial institution that offers such accounts.
    Respondents: Private Sector: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 325 hours.
    Bureau Clearance Officer: Wesley Powe, Financial Management 
Service, 3700 East West Highway, Room 135, Hyattsville, MD 20782; (202) 
874-7662.
    OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Management and Budget, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; (202) 395-
7873.

Celina Elphage,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-12095 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-114076) and in the related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of
$700,000,000 in Debt Securities, Preferred Stock and Common Stock, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-68914 and in the related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of $700,000,000 in Debt Securities, Preferred Stock and Common Stock,
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-65833) pertaining to the registration of 3,452,181 Shares of Common Stock, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-41433) pertaining to the registration of 3,713,331 Shares of Common Stock, the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-44997) pertaining to the registration of 728,929 Shares of Common Stock, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-09945) pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. Dividend Stock Purchase and Dividend
Reinvestment Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-69217) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1992 Employee Stock Plan, the Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, and the Consultancy Stock Option Agreement
dated March 2, 1998, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-02257) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of BRE Properties, Inc. and the Assumed Real Estate Investment Trust of California 1991 Officer
Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-61209) pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. 1994 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan and Chief Executive Officer Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-60082)
pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. 1992 Employee Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-05389) pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. 1984 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-30646 pertaining
to the 1999 BRE Stock Incentive Plan as amended) and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-76590 ) pertaining to the 1999 BRE Stock Incentive Plan as amended, of our reports dated February 24, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and related financial schedule of BRE Properties, Inc., BRE Properties, Inc. managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of BRE Properties, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.



|                                            |  |                      
|------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|San Francisco, California February 24,
2005 |  | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|                                            |
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 AdvanSource Biomaterials Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Volpe, the acting chief financial officer of 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 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.




/s/ David VolpeDavid VolpeActing Chief Financial OfficerDate: July 14, 2011







This certification accompanies each report of the Company on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed original of this written statement required by §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.