alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Phillips *v.*Roberts.

Pek Curiam.

1. This ease coming on for decision by an entire bench of six Justices, and they being equally divided upon the questions involving the correctness of the rulings of the Court of Appeals as set out in the first and second headnotes of its opinion in the case of *Roberts*v. *Phillips,*35 *Ga. App.*743 (134 S. E. 837), Eussell, C. J., Beck, P. J., and Gilbert, J., being of the opinion that the rulings of the Court of Appeals in these headnotes are correct, and that its judgment on these questions should be affirmed, and Atkinson, Hill, and Hines, JJ., being of the opinion that the Court of Appeals erred in these rulings, and that its judgment should be reversed on this account, the judgment of *898the Court of Appeals, so far as these questions are concerned, stands affirmed by operation of law.

No. 5683.

September 29, 1928.

Certiorari; from Court of Appeals. 35 *Get. App.*743.

*Foley & Chappell,*for plaintiff.

*McCulchen, Bowden & Gaggslalier,*for defendant.

2. The ruling of the Court of Appeals embraced in the third headnote of its decision is affirmed.

Atkinson and Hill, JJ., dissent.

*Judgment affirmed.*
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT NO. 3

                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 Intrawest Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joe S. Houssian, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,
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 Corporation.

Dated: September 15, 2003

                                       By: /s/ JOE S. HOUSSIAN
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Joe S. Houssian
                                           Title: President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer



      In connection with the annual report of Intrawest Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Daniel O. Jarvis, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Corporation, 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 Corporation.

Dated: September 15, 2003

                                       By: /s/ DANIEL O. JARVIS
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Daniel O. Jarvis
                                           Title: Executive Vice President and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 151 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure that projects funded 

through the National Institutes of Health comply with wage rate requirements commonly referred to as the ‘‘Davis-Bacon Act’’, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure that 

projects funded through the National Institutes of 

Health comply with wage rate requirements commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘Davis-Bacon Act’’, 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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 151 IH

1 SECTION 1. WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO 

2 PROJECTS FUNDED THROUGH NIH. 

3 Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act 

4 (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 498D. WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO 

7 PROJECTS FUNDED THROUGH NIH. 

8 ‘‘The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 

9 require that each entity that applies to the National Insti10 tutes of Health or any component thereof for a loan, loan 

11 guarantee, grant, contract, or cooperative agreement for 

12 any project shall include in its application reasonable as13 surance that all laborers and mechanics employed by con14 tractors or subcontractors in the performance of construc15 tion or modernization on the project will be paid wages 

16 at rates not less than those prevailing on similar work in 

17 the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in 

18 accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of part A 

19 of subtitle II of title 40, United States Code (commonly 

20 referred to as the ‘Davis-Bacon Act’).’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
#### Earline LEMOINE and Jeanine Russell v. James O’QUIN, Calthom, LLC, Progressive Insurance Company and USAA Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-2653.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 6, 2011.

In re USAA Casualty Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2009-11317; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1405.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-68929 and 333-64242 of Gevity HR, Inc. onForm S-8 of our report dated March 6, 2003, which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company changing from gross revenue reporting to net revenue reporting for worksite employee salaries,wages and payroll-related taxes and the Company’s changing its method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets to conform to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofGevity HR, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

Deloitte& Touche LLP 

 

Tampa, Florida 

March 26, 2003
Exhibit 23.3

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-68302 of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated
March 11, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change in the method of accounting for discontinued operations in 2002 as
required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144,Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets),
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.

DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP

Dallas,
Texas
March 26, 2003

---

QuickLinks
TEDDY SHAWN STOKES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1533

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 12, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Judge.

Teddy Shawn Stokes, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### D.T. Mother of N.N., a minor child, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D10-5313.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 24, 2011.

Crystal McBee Frusciante, Jupiter; Scott W. Tatum, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Pensacola; Susan M. Barber, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel; Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Angela M. Hoick, Department of Children and Families, Pensacola; David G. White, Pensacola; Patrick J. Hammergren of Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, Pensacola; Kathryn E. Errington, Guardian Ad Litem, Pensacola; Ward L. Metzger of Children’s Legal Services, Jacksonville; *633and Kelley Sehaeffer, Guardian Ad Litem Program, Tavares, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this juvenile dependency case, the appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court denying her motion for reunification with her minor child, N.N. She argues that the case must be remanded, because the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes and because there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the court’s conclusion that reunification would be detrimental to the child. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s ruling. As to the statutory findings, we are compelled to affirm, because the appellant failed to preserve this issue by a motion for rehearing or to otherwise bring the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it could have been corrected. *See Simmons v. Simmons,*979 So.2d 1063, 1064-65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); *Owens v. Owens,*973 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Affirmed.

KAHN, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ„ concur.
1

 Former President George W. Bush was named as the original lead respondent in all of

the above-captioned cases. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the Court

automatically substitutes his successor, President Barack H. Obama, as the new lead respondent.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ADEL HAMLILY,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 05-0763 (JDB)

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,1

 Respondents.

WALEED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, et al.,

Petitioners,

v. Civil Action No. 05-1646 (JDB)

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,

 Respondents.

ABDUL HAMID ABDUL SALAM

AL-GHIZZAWI,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 05-2378 (JDB)

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,

 Respondents.

ORDER

Pursuant to the December 22, 2008 Case Management Order entered in the abovecaptioned cases, the Court is currently reviewing the parties' submissions in anticipation of a

ruling regarding the appropriate definition of "enemy combatant" for use in these habeas cases. 

The Court recognizes, however, that the new Presidential administration may wish to review the

Government's current position regarding the appropriate definition of "enemy combatant" to be

used in these and other habeas cases involving Guantanamo Bay detainees. Accordingly, the
-2-

Court invites Respondents to submit any refinement of their position on the appropriate

definition of "enemy combatant" by not later than February 9, 2009. 

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ John D. Bates 

 JOHN D. BATES

 United States District Judge

Date: January 22, 2009
|   | (1) | TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|             |               CresudS.A.C.I.F. y A. |                          |
|------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|             |                                                                                                      |                          |   |
| October31, 2018. | By:                                                                                                       | /s/ AlejandroG. Elsztain |   |
|             |                                                                                                      | AlejandroG. Elsztain          |   |
|             |                                                                                                      | ChiefExecutive Officer        |   |
|             |                                                                                                      |                          |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1485 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 1485

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2008

                                Received

            October 2 (legislative day, September 17), 2008

       Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                   For the relief of Esther Karinge.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ESTHER KARINGE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Esther Karinge shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Esther Karinge enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Esther Karinge, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Esther 
Karinge shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 16, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 16, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00032

- CR

Jeffrey Sharp, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, RO SE, AND G OODWIN

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ a rguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the

court below.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7750
NATHANIEL ADEL STEWART-BEY, a/k/a Nathaniel Adel Stewart, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; B. A. BLEDSOE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-04-447-7-SGW) Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 19, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Adel Stewart-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Leslie Brownlee, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Adel Stewart-Bey, convicted and sentenced in the superior court of the District of Columbia and now incarcerated in Virginia, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), challenging the revocation of his parole by the United States Parole Commission. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); seeMadley v. United States Parole Comm’n , 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 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 Stewart-Bey 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                    9
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HORIZON FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION FOR
THE QUARTERLY  PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                  2,585
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            15,639
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        0
<LOANS>                                65,376
<ALLOWANCE>                               390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         86,922
<DEPOSITS>                             67,381
<SHORT-TERM>                            9,990
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     1,137
<LONG-TERM>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                   10
<OTHER-SE>                              8,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         86,922
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         1,357
<INTEREST-INVEST>                         257
<INTEREST-OTHER>                           18
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        1,632
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                        807
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        946
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                     686
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              24
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        (36)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                           527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           252
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                252
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              164
<EPS-BASIC>                               .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                           7.98
<LOANS-NON>                             1,160
<LOANS-PAST>                                0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                            0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                           443
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                          379
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              13
<RECOVERIES>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                         390
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      390
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                     2



</TABLE>