alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BLADEN COUNTY v. ANNIE J. SQUIRES and Husband, L. E. SQUIRES, REX SQUIRES and Wife, L. A. SQUIRES, W. S. MURCHISON and Wife, MRS. W. S. MURCHISON, C. E. PHINNEY, Trustee, and All Other Persons Claiming Any Interest in the Lands Hereinafter Described.

(Filed 21 May, 1941.)

1. Taxation § 40e—

The last and highest bidder at the foreclosure sale of a tax sale certificate is but a preferred bidder with no rights in the property in law or equity until after his bid has been accepted and confirmed by the court, *650at least until after the time for upset bids has expired, and a subsequent order of resale within the time permitted for upset bids is a rejection of his bid, and ho is not entitled to contest the validity of judgment of confirmation of the bid entered at the second sale.

2. Same—

The court has authority to reject the hid made at the foreclosure sale of a tax sale certificate and order a resale, even in the absence of exceptions or an increased hid, Public Laws of 1939, ch. 310, sec. 1719 (r), but in this case the judgment of the court that the order of resale for an increased bid was properly entered is upheld on the findings which are supported by the evidence.

Appeal by one O. E. Stevens, from *IlamiUon, Special, Judge,*at November Term, 1940, of BladeN.

Affirmed.

Civil action under C. S., 1990 to foreclose tax lien.

Judgment was entered at August Term, 1940, decreeing foreclosure, appointing a commissioner and directing sale. At the sale conducted by the commissioner, C. E. Stevens became the last and highest bidder in the sum of $1,675.00. Within the time allowed by statute the clerk received an upset bid, accepting a check in the sum of $250.00 endorsed by solvent persons in lieu of cash. He thereupon ordered a resale at which E. B. Clark became the last and highest bidder at $2,100.00.

Upon report of the resale the last bidder at the first sale filed a written petition and protest praying that the resale be adjudged a nullity and for an order confirming the first sale to him. The petition and protest was denied and judgment of confirmation was entered. The petitioner Stevens excepted and appealed.

*J. A. McNorton for petitioner, appellant.*

*Leon D. Smith for plaintiff, appellee.*

Pee Cueiam.

Stevens occupied the position of a preferred bidder with no rights in the property in law or equity until his bid had been accepted and confirmed by the court, at least untiL after the time for upset bids had expired. A subsequent order of resale within the time permitted for upset bids is a rejection of the original bid and the bidder is not entitled to contest the validity of the judgment of confirmation. *Vance v. Vance,*203 N. C., 667, 166 S. E., 901; *Richmond County v. Simmons,*209 N. C., 250, 183 S. E., 282. *The*court had authority *to*reject the bid and to order a resale in the absence of exceptions or an increase bid. Sec. 1719 (r), ch. 310, Public Laws 1939. Even if it be conceded (and it is not) that the appellant has a sufficient interest to entitle him to be heard, the facts found by the court below are supported by evidence and sustain the judgment entered.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
    Date: November 5, 2010
    
    By:
    
    /s/ JAMES A. WILHELMName:
    
    James A. WilhelmTitle:
    
    Director, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Date: November 5, 2010
    
    By:
    
    /s/ G. MARC BAUMANNName:
    
    G. Marc BaumannTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)Date: November 5, 2010
    
    By:
    
    /s/ DANIEL R. MEYERName:
    
    Daniel R. MeyerTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President, Corporate Controller and Assistant Treasurer
(Principal Accounting Officer and Duly Authorized Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8735-8736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3720]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
Amended

    Consistent with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7 and Section 122 of 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 
Act (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. Section 9622, notice is hereby given that a 
proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Beazer East, Inc., Civ. 
Act. No. 5:95-CV-62-BO(2), was lodged on January 26, 1995, with the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North 
Carolina, Western Division.
    This case concerns the Koppers Co., Inc. (Morrisville Plant) 
Superfund site, In Morrisville, Wake County, North Carolina (the 
``Site''). Pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9607, 
the Complaint in this action seeks recovery of all response costs 
incurred in response to the release or threatened release of hazardous 
substances at the Site.
    Defendant Beazer East, Inc., (the ``Settling Defendant'') has 
agreed in the proposed Consent Decree to pay the United States 
$1,023,475.15 to reimburse response costs incurred by the United States 
with respect to the Site prior to March 5, 1994.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney [[Page 8736]] General for the Environment and Natural 
Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and 
should refer to United States v. Beazer East, Inc., DOJ Ref. #90-11-3-
1108.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, Eastern District of North Carolina, Western 
Division, 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800, Federal Building, Raleigh, 
North Carolina, 27601-1461; the Office of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., 
Atlanta, Georgia; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, 
N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the 
proposed Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, 
D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case 
and enclose a check in the amount of $4.00 (25 cents per page 
reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library for a copy 
of the Consent Decree.
Bruce S. Gelber,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-3720 Filed 2-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
* 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

October 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51449

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR FRANCO-MUNOZ, also

known as Cesar Franco,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-652-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar FrancoMunoz raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997), which held

that a Texas felony conviction for possession of marijuana was an

“aggravated felony” under § 2L1.2(b) of the Sentencing

Guidelines, and by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a

penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The
No. 05-51449

-2-

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of bebe stores, inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended April 3, 2010, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Parks, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,based on my knowledge:

 

(1)    TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated: May 13,  2010 | /s/ Walter Parks                                     |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | Walter Parks                                         |
|                           | Chief Operating Officer  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

AUDRAKO D. MILLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3116

[January 31, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin J. Bidwill, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 02-010982CF10C.

Daniel A. Callahan of Daniel A. Callahan, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale 

Surber, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4925]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Climatology and Simulation of Eddies Joint 
Industry Project

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 19, 1994, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the participants in the 
Exxon Production Research Company administered project, titled 
``Climatology and Simulation of Eddies Joint Industry Project'' 
(``CASE''), has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing a change 
in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the following additional party has become a member of 
CASE: Deepwater Production Systems, Inc., Houston, TX.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the CASE Project. Membership in this project remains open, 
and CASE intends to file additional written notification disclosing all 
changes in membership.
    On August 14, 1990, Exxon Production Research Company filed its 
original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act.
    The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 18, 1990 (55 
FR 38418).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 11, 
1994. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on September 22, 1994 (59 FR 48645-48646).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-4925 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30005 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

KENVALLENO DIXON, also known as Kenvallen Dixon, also known as King

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC: 5:15

- CR

- 160

- 1

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and H O, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kenvalleno Dixon

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed brief s in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229

(5th Cir. 2011 ). Dixon h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

brief s and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 20 , 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30005 Document: 00514353813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2018No. 17

- 30005

2 counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

appellate review. Accordingly, coun sel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

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

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-30005 Document: 00514353813 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7395
WADE A. MALONE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FORD, Mr., Nurse at Facility, Richmond City Jail; INFIRMARY STAFF, Richmond City Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00500-RLW) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wade A. Malone, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas D. Lane, TILLER LAW GROUP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee Ford. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Wade A. Malone appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Malone v. Ford , No. 3:06-cv-00500-RLW (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2007). 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
Exhibit 15.1

                       Russell G. Nay, CPA
                          4278 Apex Drive
                     Las Vegas, Nevada 89147
                   Telephone:  (702) 227-8380



The Board of Directors
Great Basin Water Company

I have reviewed the accompanying balance sheet of Great Basin Water Co. as of
September 30, 2000, and the related statements of income, cash flows and
retained earnings for the period ended September 30, 2000, in accordance
with the standards established by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants.  All Information included in these Financial
Statements is the representation of the management of Great Basin Water Co.

A review consists principally of inquiries of company personnel and
analytical procedures applied to financial data.  It is substantially
less in scope than an examination in accordance with Generally Accepted
Auditing Standards, the objective of which is the expression of an
opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly,
I do not express such an opinion.

Based on my review, I am not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to the accompanying Financial Statements in order for
them to be in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

/s/ RUSSELL NAY
Russell Nay

Las Vegas, Nevada
October 2, 2000
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREA CLAIRE WOOD; TAYLOR PACKWOOD,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; MARY P. CAREY,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 16183

D.C. No. 3:21

- cv

- 00611

- MMC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2022 * *

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Andrea Claire Wood and Taylor Packwood appea l pro se from the district

court ’ s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims

stemming from the placement of Wood’s children into foster care. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

AUG 25 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 16183

jurisdiction under 28 U .S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court ’ s

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler , 627

F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against defendant

Carey because a n attorney is not a state actor under § 1983. See West v. Atkins

,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must . . . show

that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of sta te

law.”) ; Polk County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312, 317

- 19 (1981) (a private attorney or

a public defender does not act under color of state law within the meaning of

§ 1983)

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs’ claims

against the remaining defendants due to defects in service of process. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(c) and (e) (service of process requirements); In re Sheehan , 253 F.3d 507,

511 (9 th Cir. 2001) (standard of review); Boudette v. Barnette , 923 F.2d 754, 755

(9th Cir. 1991) (an action must be dismissed if proper service is not accomplished

within 120 days after the complaint is filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) );

Carter v. Comm ’r

, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants must

comply with court rules)

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Wood to be a

vexatious litigant and issuing a pre

- filing order against her. See Ringgold

- Lockhart3 21

- 16183

v. County of Los Angeles , 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) ( requirements for

issuing a vexatious litigant order ) ; Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp. , 500 F.3d

1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
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

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; Clinical Trials Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         March 3-4, 2016.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Keary A. Cope, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7190, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-2222,                         *copeka@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated:  February 3, 2016. 

 Michelle Trout, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2016-02456 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P