alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(August 23, 1990)

#### In the Matter of John M. Plunkett, Appellant, v Edward J. Mahoney et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the County of Erie, et al., Respondents.

Order modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The Erie County Board of Elections properly invalidated the designating petition because the certificate of authorization was untimely filed *(see, Matter of Fotopoulos v Board of Elections,*45 NY2d 807; *cf., Matter of Grieco v Bader,*43 Misc 2d 245, *affd*21 AD2d 751). Supreme Court erred, therefore, in authorizing the Committee on Vacancies to designate a substitute candidate.

Since the defect which required the invalidation was technical in nature, an "opportunity to ballot” is an appropriate alternative remedy *(Matter of Harden v Board of Elections,*74 NY2d 796). The record discloses no evidence of impropriety and there is a clear demonstration by the Democratic Party to have a candidate *(Matter of Venezia v Albanese,*153 AD2d 723). Here the petition contained three times the number of signatures required and a certificate of authorization was filed. The "opportunity to ballot” would provide the enrolled electorate an opportunity to express their choice at the polls *(Matter of Harden v Board of Elections, supra; Matter of Brown v Ulster County Bd. of Elections,*48 NY2d 614; *Matter of Walker v Salerno,*89 AD2d 1031, *affd*57 NY2d 739).

All concur, except Boomer and Lowery, JJ., who dissent in part, in the following memorandum.

Boomer and Lowery, JJ. (dissenting).

The "opportunity to ballot” remedy fashioned in *Matter of Hunting v Power*(20 NY2d 680) should be used only in exceptional cases where the defects are technical in nature *(Matter of Harden v Board of Elections,*74 NY2d 796). We disagree with the majority that the failure to file the certificate of authorization timely is a technical defect *(see, Matter of Mundt v Lomenzo,*34 AD2d 1035; Byer, Election Law § 61 [1st ed]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Election Law.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7938

DAVID S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JON GALLEY, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District

Judge. (CA-02-3012-1-WMN)

Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David S. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael

O’Connor Doyle, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL

SERVICES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David S. Johnson, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). The order is appealable only if a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
|   **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**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cannabis Science, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Robert Melamede, Chief Executive 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, to 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.

By: /s/ *Dr. Robert Melamede*Dr. Robert MelamedeChief Executive Officer

May 12, 2011

                 

               |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00397

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.B. , D.B., B.B., and J.G.B.

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- PA

- 00294

Honorable Fred Shannon, Judge Presiding 1

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the Order of Termination of the trial

court is AFFIRMED. No costs are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED December 18 , 2013.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

1 Sitting by assignment
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59620-59621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23934]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2085-014; 67-113; 2175-014; 120-020]


Southern California Edison, California; Notice of Intent To Hold 
a Public Meeting To Discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Big Creek Alp Hydroelectric Projects

October 2, 2008.
    On September 12, 2008, the Commission issued a Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (draft EIS) for four Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects 
and mailed it to resource and land management agencies, interested 
organizations, Tribes, and individuals.
    The Environmental Protection Agency noticed the draft EIS in the 
Federal Register on September 19, 2008 (73 FR 54393); comments are due 
November 3, 2008. The draft EIS evaluates the environmental 
consequences and developmental benefits of issuing new licenses for 
operating and maintaining the Mammoth Pool Project (FERC No. 2085); Big 
Creek Nos. 2A, 8 and Eastwood (FERC No. 67); Big Creek Nos. 1 and 2 
(FERC No. 2175); and Big Creek No. 3 (FERC No. 120), located in Fresno 
and Madera Counties, California. Besides evaluating the projects as 
they now operate, the draft EIS evaluates the projects with the 
Settlement Agreement and with staff-recommended measures.
    The public meeting, which will be recorded by an official 
stenographer, is scheduled as follows.
    Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008.
    Time: 1-4 p.m. (PST).
    Place: Piccadilly Inn Airport, 5115 East McKinley Ave, Fresno, CA 
93727, Phone: (559) 251-6000.
    At the meeting, resource agency personnel and other interested 
persons will have the opportunity to provide

[[Page 59621]]

oral and written comments and recommendations regarding the draft EIS 
for the Commission's public record.
    For further information, contact James Fargo at (202) 502-6095 or 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7319121e16005d151201141c33151601105d141c05"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7cdc6cac2d489c1c6d5c0c8e7c1c2d5c489c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23934 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02094-PAB-CBS

MARC HARRIS KAPLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHELLE L. ARCHER, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the “Notice of Understanding and Intent with

Claim of Right From the Office of the Director of the Trust” and the “Notice of Default,

Dishonor, and Opportunity to Cure” (the “Notices”). Plaintiff addressed both Notices to

me and mailed them directly to my chambers. Plaintiff’s complaint contains references

to similar notices that he mailed to defendants in this action. See Docket No. 1 at 7.

Therefore, it appears that these Notices may be related in some manner to this case. I

cannot determine, however, what Court action, if any, plaintiff is seeking. If plaintiff is

seeking Court action of some kind, he must file a properly-captioned motion to that

effect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (“A request for a court order must be made by

motion.”). Therefore, it is

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall docket the “Notice of Understanding

and Intent with Claim of Right From the Office of the Director of the Trust” and the

“Notice of Default, Dishonor, and Opportunity to Cure” in this action. It is further

Case 1:11-cv-02094-PAB-CBS Document 35 Filed 01/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that, to the extent these notices seek Court action, they are denied

without prejudice.

DATED January 23, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02094-PAB-CBS Document 35 Filed 01/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### Walter R. MOREY, Appellant, v. Betty Jean MOREY, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Dec. 21, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending May 27, 2017FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
#### **Exhibit 32.4**

#### ** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code), the undersigned officer of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation,(the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the amended Annual Reportof the Company on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,2004 (the “Report”) that:

 

 

1.                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof 

        operationsof the Company.

 

 

Date: April 28, 2005

 
|   |   /s/ R. Herbert  Hampton |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                |
|   | R. Herbert Hampton                  |
|   |                                |
|   | Chief Executive Officer             |

 

 

The foregoing certification is beingfurnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and isnot being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*John Arthur Palmer, Appellant.

County Court, Montgomery County,

May 3, 1957.

*867
      *Michael P. Cory*for appellant.

*Clinton S. Cole, District Attorney (William J. Crangle, Jr.,*of counsel), for respondent.

Chandler S. Knight, J.

The defendant was convicted of speeding in violation of subdivision 3 of section 56 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in a Court of Special Sessions of the Town of Minden, on January 26, 1957, and fined the sum of $10.

On March 19, 1957, a return on appeal, dated March 7, 1957, was submitted to this court. It did not contain an affidavit of errors. On April 17, 1957, the defendant’s attorney filed with this court an affidavit of errors, executed by the defendant and sworn to April 17, 1957, supposedly in compliance with section 751 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

That section, relating to the method of appeal from a Court of Special Sessions, reads: ‘ ‘ An appeal must be taken within thirty days after the judgment or after the commitment, where the appeal is from the latter, *by filing an affidavit*with the magistrate or clerk of the court rendering the judgment or ordering the commitment, setting forth the alleged errors in the proceedings, conviction or commitment. *A copy of the affidavit must be delivered within three days after the filing*with the magistrate or clerk of the court, *to the district attorney*of the county in which the appeal is to be heard. Upon the filing of the affidavit, the appeal is deemed taken.” (Italics supplied.)

The right to appeal is a privilege granted by statute. The procedure required by statute must be strictly followed. The court has no power “ to relieve a defendant from his failure to comply with section 75Í of the code. * * * appeals from Courts of Special Sessions *must*be taken within thirty days by the very simple method of filing an affidavit of errors. Here there was no compliance whatever with the applicable statute ” *(People*v. *Omans,*306 N. Y. 375, 377, 388).

The defendant, in this case, by failing to file an affidavit of errors with a magistrate or the clerk of the court within 30 days after judgment, and by failing, within three days thereafter, to deliver a copy of the affidavit to the District Attorney, finds himself in the same situation.

The appeal is dismissed.

An order mav be submitted accordingly.
Case 1:11-cv-02556-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02556-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02556-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02556-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS OF THE STREICHER MOBILE FUELING, INC. AS OF JANUARY 31, 1996 AND OCTOBER
31, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS
FOR EACH OF THE THREE MONTHS AND THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1995 AND
1996 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          55,896
<SECURITIES>                                    95,023
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,129,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,000
<INVENTORY>                                     69,620
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,428,648
<PP&E>                                       4,183,291
<DEPRECIATION>                                 876,574
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,228,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,611,803
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,228,115
<SALES>                                      9,009,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,009,960
<CGS>                                        8,358,580
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,358,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               664,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              93,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (104,536)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    42,717
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (61,819)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (61,819)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

In connection with the Annual Report of TBC Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence C. Day,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

March 31, 2005                         By /s/ Lawrence C. Day
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Lawrence C. Day
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

                                    78 of 79
**Exhibit 99.4**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-12130 on Form F-3, No. 333-12780 and 333-12802 on Form S-8 and No. 333-176092 on Form F-9 and to the use of our reports dated March 8, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements of BCE Inc. and the effectiveness of BCE Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, and to such reports appearing in and being incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of BCE Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2011.

*(signed) Deloitte & Touche LLP1*Independent Registered Chartered Accountants

Montréal, Canada March 14, 2012

______________________________ 1 Chartered accountant auditor permit no 9335

 

1

----
**Exhibit 99.3**

REPORTS ON INTERNAL CONTROL

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

The management of BCE Inc. (BCE) is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed under the supervision of thePresident and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of BCE to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.     Due to its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness to futureperiods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.     Management evaluated, under the supervision of and with the participation of the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, the effectivenessof our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on the framework and criteria established in*Internal Control – Integrated Framework* issued by theCommittee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on that evaluation, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice-President andChief Financial Officer concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2010. There were no material weaknesses that have been identified by management as at December 31, 2010.     Our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010 has been audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP, Independent Registered Chartered Accountants, who also audited our consolidatedfinancial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010. Deloitte & Touche issued an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

(signed) George A. Cope