alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7366

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ROBERT LEE PERNELL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. David J. Novak , Magistrate Judge. ( 3:09

- cr - 00452

- REP

- DJN

- 1 )

Submitted : March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Robert L. Pernell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Oliv i a L. Norman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert L ee Pernell, Jr. , appeals the magist rate judge ’s order denying his motion for transcripts at government expense . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Pernell’s motion to expedite as moot and affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge

. U nited States v. Pernell , No. 3:09

- cr 00452

- REP

- DJN

- 1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 25, 2017) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
## Selected Economic Variables —             2023 OASDI Trustees Report

| Single-Year Tables | Historical data | Intermediate Assumptions | Low-Cost Assumptions | High-Cost Assumptions |
|--------------------|-----------------|--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|

----

| a             CPI-W indexed to calendar year 2023. Historical values computed             using the intermediate assumptions value for 2023.b              Total earnings subject to OASDI contribution rates, adjusted to             reflect the lower effective contribution rates (compared to the             combined employee-employer rate) that apply to multiple-employer             "excess wages."c             For each alternative, incorporates the average of the assumed             annual yield for special public-debt obligations issuable to the             trust funds in the 12 months of the prior year.d             For each alternative, incorporates the annual effective yield for             all outstanding special public-debt obligations held by the trust             fund, with a half-year's interest effect in each row. The             effective yield for a period equals total interest earned during             the period divided by the total exposure to interest on asset             reserves and all income and cost items during the period. The             reciprocals of the factors approximate the             discounting/accumulation factors that are used to calculate             summarized rates and balances in this report. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Footer menu
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), the undersigned sole director of S Wind-up Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter year ended September 30, 2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic
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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic
Report and results of operations for the Company for periods covered by the Periodic Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ IRV LICHTENWALDName:

Irv LichtenwaldTitle:

DirectorDated:

November 1, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to S Wind-up
Corporation (the Company) and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
**Exhibit
31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, Brian
Lenz, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of VioQuest
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”);2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    The
      Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) and 15d-15(e)) for Registrant 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 Registrant, 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 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 (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and5.
    The
      Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 the Registrant’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 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 small business issuer’s
      internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date:
      May 13, 2005
    /s/
      Brian LenzBrian
      Lenz
      Chief
      Financial Officer
#### The Grand Street and Newtown Railroad Company, Respondent, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

— Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed,with cost. Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Pratt, J., not sitting.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 62879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29850]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[CA-026-1020-01]


Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meeting

November 29, 1995.
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Susanville Resource Advisory Council 
Susanville, California.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in accordance with Public Law 95-579 
(FLPMA) that the Bureau of Land Management's Susanville Resource 
Advisory Council will meet Friday and Saturday, January 26 and 27, 
1996, in the Bureau of Land Management Office at 705 Hall Street in 
Susanville, California. The January 26 session will convene at 10 a.m. 
at the BLM wild horse and burro corrals in Litchfield, CA, for a field 
tour of livestock grazing allotments and other public land areas. The 
tour will return to Susanville at about 4:30 p.m. The January 27 
meeting will begin at 9 a.m. in the conference room at 705 Hall Street. 
Items to be discussed include the council's work on regional rangeland 
standards and guidelines, council coordination with subgroups and other 
Resource Advisory Councils, and council organizational business. The 
council will hear updates from BLM resource area managers, and hear a 
progress report on the East Lassen Plan.
    The meeting is open to the public, and public comments will be 
taken from 1 to 2 p.m. Saturday, January. 27. Depending on the number 
of persons wishing to speak, a time limit may be imposed.
    Summary meeting minutes will be maintained at the Susanville BLM 
Office, 705 Hall Street, Susanville, CA.
    For further information, contact: Jeff Fontana (916) 257-5381.
Linda D. Hansen
Eagle Lake Resource Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 95-29850 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 2, 2022

No. 04-22-00764-CV

MED SHIELD AMBULANCE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Oscar CASTANO,

Appellee

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21-05-40016-MCV

Honorable Maribel Flores, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief is due to be filed on December 7, 2022. On November 30, 2022, 

appellant filed a motion requesting a thirty-day extension of time to file the brief. Appellant’s 

motion is GRANTED, and appellant is ORDERED to file its brief no later than January 6, 

2023.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of December, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### J. L. THOMPSON v. DR. PEPPER BOTTLERS CORPORATION.

(Filed 17 April, 1940.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Gwyn, J.-,*at November Term, 1939, of Ieedell.

Civil action to recover for alleged actionable negligence.

Tbe pleading and evidence disclose tbat defendant is a corporation engaged in tbe business of bottling a soft drink known as “Dr. Pepper,” in Charlotte, North Carolina; that it distributes tbe “Dr. Pepper” in bottles to retail dealers in Mooresville, Iredell County, North Carolina, and elsewhere to be sold for human consumption, for which purpose defendant advertises it as a refreshing and health-giving beverage; tbat defendant directly or through its agents and employees at tbe times hereinafter mentioned “sold or left for sale” bottled “Dr. Pepper” with the Tuxedo Billiard Parlor in Mooresville, North Carolina.

Plaintiff further alleges and defendant for lack of information denies that on night of 4 July, 1938, plaintiff, after buying a bottle of “Dr. Pepper” in said Tuxedo Billiard Parlor, drank a part of it and discovered therein a foreign substance and was made sick thereby.

Plaintiff offers evidence tending not only to support the further allegation but tending to show that some time in July, 1938, within five or six days from the time plaintiff purchased the bottle as aforesaid, Floyd Beaver and Corbitt Moore found in a bottle of “Dr. Pepper,” bought in the Shell Filling Station at the corner of Main and Moore, something like a piece of meat “as big as the end of your thumb, green looking on one side and black looking on the other,” with manufacture and sale of which there is no evidence to connect defendant.

Plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court from judgment as of nonsuit entered at close of his evidence, and assigns error.

*Zeb V. Turlington for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Land & Sowers for defendant, appellee.*

*796Per Curiam.

No new question of law is raised in this case on appeal. Hence, in accordance with well settled applicable principles of law as enunciated in *Enloe v. Bottling Co.,*208 N. C., 305, 180 S. E., 582, and numerous decisions subsequently rendered, the evidence appearing here, taken in the light most favorable to' plaintiff as is required in considering demurrer to evidence, O. S., 567, is insufficient to take the case to the jury. •

The judgment below is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2
       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, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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 (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  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;
andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Henry Hirvela

Henry HirvelaInterim Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 3.2(a)  AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS OF BEHRINGER HARVARD OPPORTUNITY
REIT II, INC.  Section 2.02 of Article II of the Bylaws of Behringer Harvard Opportunity
REIT II, Inc. is hereby amended and restated as follows:  Section
2.02  Annual Meeting.  An annual meeting of the stockholders for the
election of directors and the transaction of any business within the powers of
the Corporation shall be held on such day as the Board of Directors may
determine.  The purpose of each annual
meeting of the stockholders shall be to elect directors of the Corporation and
to transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting.  Effective
as of February 15, 2010
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5669 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the loss 

of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizens due to affiliation 

with designated foreign terrorist organizations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Mr. YOHO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

for the loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized 

citizens due to affiliation with designated foreign terrorist organizations. 

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 ‘‘Terrorist Nationality 

5 Act of 2014’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5669 IH

1 SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATU2 RALIZED CITIZENS DUE TO AFFILIATION 

3 WITH DESIGNATED FOREIGN TERRORIST OR4 GANIZATIONS. 

5 Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

6 Act (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ‘‘polit8 ical subdivision thereof’’ the following: ‘‘or a foreign 

9 terrorist organization’’; 

10 (2) in paragraph (3)— 

11 (A) by inserting before ‘‘armed forces of a 

12 foreign state’’ the following: ‘‘a foreign terrorist 

13 organization or’’; and 

14 (B) by striking ‘‘(A) such armed forces are 

15 engaged in hostilities against the United 

16 States’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(A) such 

17 armed forces or foreign terrorist organizations 

18 are engaged in hostilities or acts of terror 

19 against the United States or nationals of the 

20 United States’’; 

21 (3) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at 

22 the end and inserting the following: ‘‘; or’’; and 

23 (4) by inserting after paragraph (7) the fol24 lowing: 

25 ‘‘(8) becoming a member of, or providing train26 ing or material assistance to, any foreign terrorist 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5669 IH

1 organization that such person knows, or has reason 

2 to know— 

3 ‘‘(A) will engage in hostilities against the 

4 United States; or 

5 ‘‘(B) will commit acts of terror against the 

6 United States or nationals of the United 

7 States.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 20, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00649

- CV

The State Bar of Texas, Appellant

v.

Robert J. Wilson, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SHANNON

REVERSED AND RENDERED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SHANNON

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the tr i a l court on September 19, 2018.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible

error in the order . Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s interlocutory order and renders

judgment dismissing appellee’s cause of action for want of jurisdiction. A ppellee shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### M. G. BAREFOOT v. THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK.

(Filed 8 March, 1933.)

Insurance J e — Where encumbrance is paid off prior to loss insurer may not avoid liability on ground that encumbrance violated terms of policy.

A clause in a policy of fire and theft insurance requiring that the insured disclose any encumbrance or lien against the automobile insured is not a valid defense to an action on the policy where an encumbrance on the car in violation of the terms of the policy is paid off and discharged prior to the occurrence of loss covered by the policy.

*302Appeal by defendant from *Grady, J.,*at September Term, 1932, of HaeNett.

No error.

On 26 April, 1930, tbe plaintiff bought a Ford car from J. W. Thornton (a local dealer at Dunn) on the installment plan and gave him a conditional sales contract. At the same time he applied to the seller for insurance and the premium was included in the purchase price of the car. The sale was financed through the Universal Credit Company of Charlotte. On the same day (26 April) the plaintiff gave II. C. Wooten a second mortgage on the car to secure $130. On or about 29 April, 1930, the defendant delivered to the plaintiff its policy dated 26 April, insuring the car against the hazard of theft and fire. The term of the policy was twelve months, beginning 26 April, 1930, and ending 26 April, 1931. The car was stolen on Saturday night, 15 November, 1930, and was found on the next Wednesday almost totally destroyed by fire. The plaintiff demanded payment of the insurance and the defendant disclaimed liability by reason of a clause in the policy which required the plaintiff at the time of ajjplying for the insurance to make disclosure of any encumbrance or lien on the car. The plaintiff admitted that at no time after issuing the policy did he notify the insurance company of the mortgage to Wooten; but Wooten testifying on behalf of the defendant said that J. W. Thornton was present when the plaintiff executed the lien to Wooten and in fact furnished the paper on which it was written; that Thornton was informed of the entire transaction and assured Wooten that the policy'would protect him just as it would protect Wooten. In response to the issues submitted the jury found from the evidence that the defendant had issued its policy on the car and had knowledge of the second lien, that the plaintiff had discharged the lien before the car had been stolen, and that the value of the car was $500 at the time it was burned. The court gave judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

*James Best for plaintiff.*

*B. L. Godwin for defendant.*

Adams, J.

The second lien was not in effect when the car was burned. It had previously been paid and discharged. The appeal is therefore to be determined by the principle enunciated in *Cottingham v. Insurance Co.,*168 N. C., 259. The encumbrance suspended the risk and the policy was revived when the encumbrance was discharged. The question of Thornton’s agency and the exceptions to the instructions relating to it need not be considered. It would have been erroneous to grant the defendant’s motion for nonsuit.

No error.