alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J I E GA O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73876 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 448- 618 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay15, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , G R A B E R , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J i e G a o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n. W e ha ve ju risd icti o n u n d er8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r ev iew fo r ab u se o f d iscr etio n th e B IA ’s 

# FI LED MA Y24 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73876 2 d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . G u z m a n v . I NS , 31 8 F . 3d 91 1, 91 2 n . 1 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. G a o c o n te n d s th a t th e B I A e rr e din d e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n b e c au s e it f a i l e d t o r e c ogni z e tha tC hi ne s e author i t i e s di s t i ngui s h be tw e e n a c t i vi s ta nd nona c t i vi s tm e m be r s of

the C hi naD e m oc r a c yP arty( “ C D P ” ) a nd tha tthe l a tt e rha ve b e e n s ub je c t to in c r e a s e dm is tr e a tm e n t s in c e h e rin ab s e n tiar e m o v a l o r d e rin 2 0 0 2 . T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng G ao’ s unt i m el y m ot i on t o reopen be c aus e the r e c or d, i nc l udi ng the S t a t e D e partm e nt ’ s 2006 c ountryr e port , doe s not show a m at er i alchange i n con di t i on s i n C hi na for C D P m em bers si nce G ao w as f ir s t o r d e r e dr e m o v e d . See A lm araz v. H older , 60 8 F . 3d 63 8, 64 0-42 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ). A cco rd i n g l y, G ao ’ s m o t i o n t o reo p en fai l s. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### SHELL OIL CO., Inc., et al. v. KRAUSE & MANAGAN, Inc., et al.

No. 2817.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 28, 1946.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Letts v. Krause *&*Managan, Inc., and Shell Oil Company, Inc., v. Same defendants, 26 So.2d 838, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be affirmed at the costs of defendants.
No. 72-1054.

#### Tyler Junior College et al. *v.*Lansdale et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

AUGUSTUS ROSE
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 871

[ March 31, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Michael J. McNicholas , Judge; L.T. Case No. 47

- 2013

- CF

- 000579

- A

.

Robert David Malove of Robert David Malove, P.A., F ort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm B each, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and C IKLIN
, J.J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 190 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22869]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Membership of the Defense Contract Audit Agency Senior Executive 
Service Performance Review Boards

AGENCY: Defense Contract Audit Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of members to the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Performance Review Boards. The 
Performance Review Boards provide fair and impartial review of Senior 
Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals and make recommendations 
to the Director, DCAA, regarding final performance ratings and 
performance awards for DCAA SES members.

DATES: Effective Date: September 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra L. Burrell, Chief, Human 
Resources Management Division, Defense Contract Audit Agency, 8725 John 
J. Kingman Road, Suite 2135, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6219, (703) 
767-1039.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following are the names and titles of DCAA career executives appointed 
to serve as members of the DCAA Performance Review Boards. Appointees 
will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.

Headquarters Performance Review Board

    Mr. Kenneth Saccoccia, Assistant Director, Policy and Plans, DCAA, 
Chairperson;
    Mr. Thomas Peters, Director, Field Detachment, DCAA, member;
    Ms. Karen K. Cash, Assistant Director, Operations, DCAA, member.

Regional Performance Review Board

    Mr. Edward Nelson, Regional Director, Northeastern Region, 
chairperson;
    Mr. Christopher Andrezze, Regional Director, Western Region, DCAA, 
member;
    Mr. David Eck, Regional Director, Central Region, DCAA.

    Dated: September 22, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E8-22869 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### WISE et ux. v. VILLERE COAL CO., Inc., et al.

No. 17812.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 1, 1943.

For prior opinion see 11 So.2d 419.

Edward Rightor and Henry G. Neyrey, Jr., both of New Orleans, for plaintiffs and appellees.

A. D. Danziger, of New Orleans, for defendant-appellee Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey, of New Orleans, for defendants-appellants Villere Coal Co., Inc., and U. S. Casualty Co.

PER CURIAM.

In an application for a rehearing, Villere Coal Co. Inc. and United States Casualty Co. set forth that we were in error in stating in our original opinion that Mr. Wise had answered the appeal taken by them and that, therefore, it was incorrect for us to dismiss as of nonsuit the unproven items of damage claimed by him.

While it is true that, through oversight, it was stated in our opinion that both plaintiffs had answered the appeal praying for an increase of the judgment below (whereas, as a matter of fact only Mrs. Wise answered), it does not follow that the decree rendered by us reducing the the judgment of the lower court in Mr. Wise’s favor from $395.08 to $206.73, and dismissing his claim for the difference between these amounts as of nonsuit is incorrect — for it is perfectly plain that our decree, insofar as it altered the judgment appealed from, was against Mr. Wise and not in his favor. On the other hand, in order to avoid any misunderstanding of our decree in the event Mr. Wise makes claim in the future for the amount for whichhe is nonsuit-ed by this court, his claim can only be considered for the difference between the judgment of the district court and the judgment awarded him in this court, or the sum of $188.35, and not for the difference between the amount of $1,346.08 which is claimed by him in his petition and the amount of the judgment here. Whatever claim he may have had originally for any excess over $395.08 is forever lost due to his failure to complain of the judgment of the trial court.

The application for a rehearing is refused.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

I,John Lackland, Chief Financial Officer of Power Efficiency Corporation,certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:

1.                                       theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Date:  May 15, 2007
|        | BY:    | /s/ John Lackland       |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | John Lackland           |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of aseparate disclosure document.

----
#### Murray R. Braun et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Gloria May Rosenblum, Appellant-Respondent.

[811 NYS2d 683]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated November 15, 2004, as, in effect, denied that branch of her motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) which was to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages relating to the underlying action, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, *640on the law, and that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages relating to the underlying action is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred, in effect, in denying that branch of her motion which was to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages relating to the underlying action. We agree. “Although generally a defendant attorney is liable to the plaintiff for the claim he would have recovered in the dismissed suit . . . punitive damages are not included in this general claim theory” *(Cappetta v Lippman,*913 F Supp 302, 306 [1996] [citation omitted]). Thus, the plaintiffs may not recover in the instant legal malpractice action for any punitive damages that were “lost” when the underlying personal injury action was dismissed *(see Summerville v Lipsig,*270 AD2d 213 [2000]). Accordingly, to the extent that the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs were not precluded from “making a claim for punitive damages [relating to] the underlying action,” the order should be reversed insofar as appealed from. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Anthony LaFauci

v. Case No. 08-cv-77-PB

NH Adult Parole Board, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. To the extent that he seeks a

certificate of appealability, his motion is denied. To the

extent that he intends his motion to seek permission to file a

new petition, I lack the authority to act on the motion. Thus, I

construe the motion as a motion for certificate of appealability

and I deny the motion without prejudice to petitioner’s right to

petition the Court of Appeals for authority to file a second

habeas corpus petition. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 29, 2009

cc: Anthony LaFauci, pro se

Elizabeth Woodcock, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00077-PB Document 34 Filed 09/29/09 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02325-MSK-CBS

JEFFREY B. SAFFER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLUB HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------




CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the accompanying Form 10-QSB of ZAP for the six months ended
June 30, 2004, Steven M. Schneider, Director and Chief Executive Officer of ZAP,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(1)  such Form Type of ZAP for the six months ended June 30, 2004, fully
     complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
     Securities Exchange of 1934; and

(2)  the information contained in such Form 10-QSB of ZAP for the six months
     ended June 30, 2004,fairly presents, in all material respects, the
     financial condition and results of operations of ZAP.






/s/  Steve  Schneider
---------------------
Steve  Schneider
Director and Chief Executive Officer


August 13, 2004
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending May 21, 2011FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: December 18, 2012

Court Reporter: Terri Lindblom

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

Parties: Counsel Appearing:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAUNITA WEINGART,

JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS; and

ALOIS WEINGART,

Defendant.

Linda Kaufman

Martha Paluch

Jolie Masterson

Darlene Bagley

Paula Ray

COURTROOM MINUTES

HEARING: Oral Ruling- 702 Evidentiary Hearing

2:10 p.m. Court in session.

Defendants’ presence have been waived but Wuanita Weingart is present on bond.

Oral findings and conclusions of law are made of record and incorporated herein. 

ORDER: The Court’s ruling regarding the opinions of expert witness Dana Chamberlin’s

are as set forth in the record.

ORDER: Bond is continued.

3:16 p.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 1 hour 6 minutes. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 189 filed 12/18/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Courtroom Minutes

Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

Hearing concluded.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 189 filed 12/18/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certificate 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 Access Anytime Bancorp, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the “Report”), I, Ken Huey, Jr., ChiefFinancial 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) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date:  July 29, 2005 |   | /s/ Ken Huey, Jr.                          |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   | Ken Huey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer,    |   |
|                           |   | *(Principal Financial and  Accounting Officer)* |   |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7471

DEXTER PALMER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. CECELIA REYNOLDS, Warden at Lee Correctional Institution , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Margaret B. Seymour , Senior District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv - 02571

- MBS )

Submitted : May 18 , 2017 Decided: June 5, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Dexter Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dexter Palmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealab le unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2 012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition st ates a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Palmer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
Cancellation of Nonqualified Stock Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.34 
  
 CANCELLATION OF NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT 
  
 WHEREAS, the undersigned individual (“Grantee”) and Community Bancshares, Inc. (the “Corporation”)
entered into a Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement dated as of January 27, 2004 (the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 13 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended by the Board of Directors of the Corporation with the consent of the
Grantee; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Corporation’s Board of
Directors determined on March 11, 2004 that the Agreement should be amended to cancel the Agreement in its entirety; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Grantee is agreeable to such amendment and cancellation; 
  

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree that the Agreement is amended to cancel the Agreement in its entirety as of the date hereof. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument as of the 11th day of March, 2004. 
  

			
	 COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Patrick M. Frawley


	 Its:
	 	 Chairman and CEO

	
	 GRANTEE:

	
	 /s/ Grantee
EXHIBIT 99.B




                            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 on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending June 30, 2002, of New Generation Holdings,  Inc. (the "Company") as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Jeffrey McArthur,  Chief Financial Officer, certify (i) that the Report fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                       /s/ Jeffrey McArthur
                                       ---------------------------
                                       Jeffrey McArthur
                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                       August 19, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1189 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1189

To designate the Federal building and United States Courthouse located 
at 100 East 8th Avenue in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, as the ``George Howard, 
          Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 23, 2007

Mr. Pryor (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States Courthouse located 
at 100 East 8th Avenue in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, as the ``George Howard, 
          Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. GEORGE HOWARD, JR. FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States 
Courthouse, located at 100 East 8th Avenue in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, 
shall be known and designated as the ``George Howard, Jr. Federal 
Building and United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States Courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``George Howard, Jr. Federal Building and 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```