alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21598]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1931-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]


Texas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1931-DR), dated August 3, 2010, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of 
August 3, 2010.

Dawson County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-21598 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31153

RUDY YOUNG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BANK ONE, N.A.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

No. 2:04-CV-772

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and have consulted pertinent portions of the record and have heard oral argument from counsel. The reUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-31153

2

sult on appeal turns on the standard of review, which is whether the district

court abused its discretion in striking plaintiff’s tardy response to the motion for

summary judgment.

In part because of the numerous delays occasioned by plaintiff in the

course of this litigation, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion. We make this decision irrespective of what ruling we might

make if reviewing the district court’s action de novo. It is, however, an unfortunate result, given that it follows from the inadvertent mistake of counsel.

We are without jurisdiction on appeal to rule on the award of costs to the

bank. The record contains no ruling on costs, nor does the notice of appeal mention it.

The summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 24.1POWER OF ATTORNEY     Each person whose signature appears below, hereby authorizes and appoints Richard D. Strombackas his attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution and resubstitution, to sign and file on hisbehalf individually and in each such capacity stated, below, the Annual Report of Ecology Coatings,Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ending September 30, 2007, and any amendments thereto to be filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission, The NASDAQ Stock Market or similar body, andotherwise, as fully as such person could do in person, hereby verifying and confirming all thatsaid attorneys-in-fact, or their or his substitutes or substitute, may lawfully do or cause to bedone by virtue hereof.     **Signatures** **Title** **Date**/s/ Richard D. Stromback Richard D. Stromback Chairman and Chief Executive Officer December 19, 2007/s/ F. Thomas Krotine F. Thomas Krotine, Director, President and Chief Operations Officer December 19, 2007/s/ David W. Morgan  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, andTreasurer December 19, 2007David W. Morgan (Primary Financial Officer)  /s/ Robert W. Liebig  Director December 19, 2007Robert W. Liebig    /s/ Donald Campion  Director December 19, 2007Donald Campion    /s/ Adam S. Tracy  Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel December 19, 2007Adam S. Tracy    /s/ Kevin Stolz  Controller and Chief Accounting Officer December 19, 2007Kevin Stolz (Primary Accounting Officer)
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Personal Touch Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Rizwan Ahmed, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Maya Assurance Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Korsunskiy Legal Group, P.C. (Michael Hoenig, Esq.), for appellant.De Martini &amp; Yi, LLP, for respondent (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered August 20, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Plaintiff correctly contends that the affidavit submitted by defendant did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that the letters scheduling independent medical examinations (IMEs) had been properly addressed and mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]; <a href="../2015/2015_50387.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v Maya Assur. Co.</i>, 47 Misc 3d 130</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50387[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]). As a result, defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear at duly scheduled IMEs (<a href="../2006/2006_09604.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720</a> [2006]). Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 19, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 99.7

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 on Form 40-F of Novadaq Technologies Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arun Menawat, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



|                     |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 26, 2015 |  |  |  | /s/ Arun Menawat                     
|                     |  |  |  | Arun Menawat                         
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                         CC MASTER CREDIT CARD TRUST II
                      Excess Spread Analysis - April 2001


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series                                   1995-A            1995-C             1996-A            1996-C             1998-A
Deal Size                                $400 MM           $400 MM          $407.25 MM         $271.50 MM         $600 MM
Expected Maturity                       08/15/02          02/18/03           11/15/01          02/16/04           09/15/03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>               <C>               <C>                <C>                <C>

Yield                                   20.68%             20.68%            20.68%             20.68%            20.68%
Less:    Coupon                          5.28%              5.29%             5.27%              5.26%             5.29%
         Servicing Fee                   1.50%              1.50%             1.50%              1.50%             1.50%
         Net Credit Losses               8.84%              8.84%             8.84%              8.84%             8.84%
Excess Spread:
         April-01                        5.05%              5.04%             5.06%              5.08%             5.05%
         March-01                        6.17%              6.16%             6.18%              6.19%             6.16%
         February-01                     2.62%              2.60%             2.62%              2.64%             2.61%
Three month Average Excess Spread        4.61%              4.60%             4.62%              4.63%             4.61%

Delinquency:
         30 to 59 days                   2.13%              2.13%             2.13%              2.13%             2.13%
         60 to 89 days                   1.58%              1.58%             1.58%              1.58%             1.58%
         90 + days                       3.31%              3.31%             3.31%              3.31%             3.31%
         Total                           7.03%              7.03%             7.03%              7.03%             7.03%

Payment Rate                            13.55%             13.55%            13.55%             13.55%            13.55%

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUSSELL EDWARD MANNING

No. 439A00

(Filed 4 May 2001)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 139 N.C. App. 454, 534 S.E.2d 219 (2000), finding no error in judgments entered 21 October 1998 by-Everett, J., in Superior Court, Pitt County. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 April 2001.

*Roy A. Cooper, Attorney General, by David N. Kirkman, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*W. Gregory Duke for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2402 

To amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to address the need to 

increase on-the-job training and apprenticeship opportunities, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2014 

Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. PRYOR, and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to address 

the need to increase on-the-job training and apprenticeship opportunities, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Work and Learn Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. 

6 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

7 (1) Success in the 21st century labor market 

8 increasingly requires workers to demonstrate comVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:44 Jun 03, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2402.IS S2402

jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2402 IS

1 petencies in thinking critically and applying new 

2 skills to ever more complex technology. 

3 (2) By 2020, the United States is expected to 

4 experience a shortage of 3,000,000 workers with as5 sociate degrees or higher degrees, and 5,000,000 

6 workers with technical certificates and credentials. 

7 (3) Properly structured, on-the-job training pro8 grams should be part of the mission to get individ9 uals back to work. 

10 (4) Apprenticeships, one common model for 

11 providing workplace training, are a proven way to 

12 help people develop in-demand skills and to meet the 

13 needs of employers, yet the individuals in apprentice14 ships compose just 0.2 percent of the Nation’s work15 force. 

16 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to 

17 strengthen work-based programs of employment and 

18 training activities. 

19 SEC. 3. LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS. 

20 Section 117(b)(2)(A) of the Workforce Investment 

21 Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832(b)(2)(A)) is amended— 

22 (1) in clause (v), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

23 and 

24 (2) by inserting after clause (vi) the following: 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2402 IS

1 ‘‘(vii) a representative who has exper2 tise implementing work-based programs of 

3 employment and training activities that 

4 combine technical training with related in5 struction, including such programs that 

6 begin by providing mentoring and job 

7 shadowing opportunities, which evolve into 

8 intensive internships and registered ap9 prenticeships; and’’. 

10 SEC. 4. PERFORMANCE. 

11 Section 136(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Workforce Investment 

12 Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2871(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended— 

13 (1) in subclause (III), by striking ‘‘and’’; 

14 (2) in subclause (IV), by striking the period 

15 and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

16 (3) by inserting after subclause (IV) the fol17 lowing new subclause: 

18 ‘‘(V) Completion of a registered 

19 apprenticeship.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 26, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 26, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19I0174. LORIE BENTLEY v. JAKE EDGEWORTH et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

SUCV2017000555
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 17

, 20 12

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 12

- 00340

- CR

____________

MOISES LANZA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176 th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1261584



### MEMORANDUM OP IN ION

Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to bodily injury to a child under fifteen.

In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court

sentenced appellant on March 6, 2012 , to confinement for two yea r s in the Institutional

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice . Appellant filed a pro se notice of

appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant ’ s right to appeal in which the

court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no right of appeal. See

T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court ’ s certification is included in the record on2

appeal. See T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports the trial court ’ s certification. See

Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Brown

.
Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Access Integrated Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-123279), Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-127673), Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-129747), Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-136998), Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-140231), Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-142411), Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-124290), and Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-139091) of our report dated June 28, 2007 on our audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-KSB.  We also consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-123279), Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-127673), Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-129747), Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-136998), Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-140231) and Form S-3(Registration No. 333-142411).

 

 

 

/s/ Eisner LLP

Florham Park, New Jersey

June 28, 2007
1995 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-16-1995

In Re: Leon Moser

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 95-9005

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Leon Moser" (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 226.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/226
 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 95-9005 

___________ 

In Re: Leon Moser 

___________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

August 15, 1995 

Before: MANSMANN, COWEN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. 

 (E.D.PA Civil 95-cv-05175) 

___________ 

 (Filed: August 16, l995) 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

 

__________ 

Per Curiam. 

 We have before us an appeal purporting to challenge the 

August 16, 1995 order of the district court "granting `next 

friend' status and a competency hearing and finding no deliberate 

delay." Respondents' Memorandum of Appeal. The State does not 

offer a basis for the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction to 

hear this interlocutory matter nor does it ask us to exercise our 

mandamus authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 

 Unlike the appeal from the grant of a stay of execution 

on which we had alternate grounds of jurisdiction, specifically 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and mandamus jurisdiction under the All 

Writs Act given the extraordinary circumstances of the grant of a 
stay, we find that we do not have jurisdiction in the absence of 

a certification by the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1292(b). It is hereby ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction.
News United States Air Force
 SecAF, CSAF visit 386 AEW, talk top priorities with AirmenPublished Aug. 21, 2017
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Jonathan Hehnly
                        
                        
                        386th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs
                **SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFNS) --**
                Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein visited the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing at an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia Aug. 19-20, 2017, to talk top priorities with Airmen.Wilson and Goldfein started their visit with an all call luncheon at the 386th Expeditionary Force Support Squadron’s Desert Winds dining facility where the Air Force’s top leaders addressed the crowd of U.S. service members and joint coalition partners, thanking them for their role in the fight before making their way around the dining facility and interacting with Airmen. “For the secretary and I, this is our opportunity to look you face to face, to get around to shake your hand and to say thank you to you and your families for serving when your nation needs you most,” said Goldfein. “It matters and I’m proud to be your chief.”The following day, the 386th AEW hosted a wing town hall where Wilson and Goldfein took center stage to discuss top priorities for the future of the Air Force.Wilson spoke about the five Air Force Priorities of restoring readiness, cost-effective modernization, leadership development, innovation and strengthening alliances. “The Air Force of today doesn’t win on its own, and neither do the Army or the Navy, and neither do our coalition partners,” said Wilson. “We have to develop joint leaders, and the chief and I are focused on the squadron as where leadership really matters most. The culture of the Air Force is set at the squadron, not at the headquarters, so we will seek to develop those great joint leaders and teams.”Goldfein then went on to emphasize the strategic importance of the Airman’s role in supporting and enabling the Iraqis in taking back their country. “Every Airman matters," he said. "Every mission that we bring here matters.”SecAF 



Secretary of the Air Force 



Air Force 



CSAF 



centcom 



Airmen 



AF 



AFCENT 



386th Air Expeditionary Wing 



visit 



chief of staff of the Air Force 



U.S. Air Forces Central Command 



dining facility 



386th AEW 



David L. Goldfein 



386th EFSS 



Heather Wilson 



Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson 



Chief of Staff of the Air Force David L. Goldfein 



386th Expeditionary Force Support Squadron 



U.S. Central Command