alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Family Day, 2010 

Committed families shape and guide our children, preparing them for every obstacle they may encounter and encouraging them to overcome life’s most demanding challenges.  Today, our young people are exposed to negative influences that can lead to dangerous decisions, such as abusing drugs and alcohol.  When parents, loved ones, and mentors take the time to educate youth about the risks they face, they can change attitudes and reduce the likelihood their loved ones will use alcohol and illicit drugs.  On Family Day, we honor the devotion of parents and family members, and recognize their critical role in teaching our young people positive and healthy behaviors.

Parents across America balance demanding responsibilities at work with family needs, including valuable time spent with their children.  America’s youth encounter difficult choices in their daily lives, and we must be there for them as they strive to succeed in school and resist pressures to use dangerous substances that can affect their health and limit their potential.  Concerned and active parents and guardians play a critical role in keeping our children drug-free, and they can demonstrate by example how to lead a healthy and drug-free life.  I encourage all Americans to visit www.TheAntiDrug.com for information and resources to talk with children and warn them against the perils of drug use.

Simple daily activities such as sharing a meal, a conversation, or a book can have an enormous impact on the life of a child.  Strong and engaged families help build a strong America, and it is our responsibility as concerned family members to discuss the dangers of substance abuse.  On this Family Day, let us recommit to creating a solid foundation for the future health and happiness of all our Nation’s children.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 27, 2010, as Family Day.  I call upon the people of the United States to join together in observing this day by spending time with your families, and by engaging in appropriate ceremonies and activities to honor and strengthen our Nation’s families.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-seventh day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

[FR Doc. 2010-24777

Billing code 3195-W0-P
EXHIBIT 31

                                  CERTIFICATION

          Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, I, John D.
Richardson, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of CIMNET(R), Inc.
          (the "Company");

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
          statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
          necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
          under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
          the period covered by this annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
          information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
          material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
          cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in
          this annual report;

     4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
          and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
          for the Company and I have:

          a)   designed such internal controls to ensure that material
               information relating to the Company is made known to me by others
               within the Company, particularly during the period in which this
               annual report is being prepared;

          b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's internal controls as
               of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
               report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          c)   presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
               effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
               my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

     5.   I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
          Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of
          directors:

          a)   all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation
               of internal controls which could adversely affect the Company's
               ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
               and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material
               weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
               other employees who have a significant role in the Company's
               internal controls.

     6.   I have indicated in the annual report whether or not there were
          significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
          could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of
          our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
          regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  March 30, 2004


/s/ John D. Richardson
----------------------------
John D. Richardson
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
649 A.2d 1281

#### EDITH BECKER, ETC. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND BARON BROTHERS, ETC.

May 17, 1994.

CORRECTED

Certification is granted.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130261(47) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 130261 

 COA: 255876 

Saginaw CC: 03-022908-FC 

MARCUS RAYDEVAN WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of April 

28, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

p0619 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2006 

Clerk
#### Edward MONTGOMERY v. LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 2010-CC-2241.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Lafayette Parish School Board; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. # 4, No. 09-03319; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCW 10-00896.

Denied.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1907. LINDSEY JO HANVEY v. DALTON WILLIAM WHEELER.

This Court is aware of an Order to Vacate and Set Aside entered at the trial

court level after the docketing of this appeal. On November 2, 2017, this Court

ordered Appellant and Appellee to brief this Court within ten (10) days as to whether

this matter has been resolved and/or whether the trial court’s Order to Vacate is valid. 

Appellant has failed to file any response. Appellee responded on November 16,

2017, stating that the parties had entered into an agreement to set aside the Final

Order entered on March 1, 2017. Therefore, based upon this information, this case

is hereby REMANDED to the trial court for disposition. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

December 18, 2017

12/18/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  106,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     68,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,283
<PP&E>                                         220,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,938)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 519,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,479
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   519,694
<SALES>                                        579,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               579,322
<CGS>                                          458,312
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  458,312
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                77,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,976
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,451
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,505
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,505
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0   
        

</TABLE>
649 A.2d 1281

#### PAULINE MONDINO v. JOHN N. CASTELLUCCI, M.D. AND SURGIDEV CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL.

September 29, 1994.

ORDER

Prior Report: 636 A.2d 524.

This matter having been duly considered and the Court having determined that certification was improvidently granted;

It is ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed.
857 A.2d 672

#### Perry Michael ENGEL, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION PAROLE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 4, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2004, probable jurisdiction is noted and the order appealed is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EARNEST S. HARRIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

E. McCUMSEY, Ms.; Senior Librarian, The 

Law Library, Pelican Bay State Prison, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-15422 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01487-JST 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Earnest S. Harris appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-tocourts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. 

 

* 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

FEB 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Harris failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury 

as a result of defendant’s conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-54

(1996) (setting forth elements of access-to-courts claim and actual injury 

requirement).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See 

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
#### In re CENTROTEXTIL, Petitioner.

No. 80-1296.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 9, 1980.

Leonard D. Vines, Moseley, Moseley & Vines, St. Louis, Mo., filed the petition together with suggestions in support. No appearance was submitted.

No appearance was submitted for respondent.

Before STEPHENSON, HENLEY and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Honorable William L. Hungate, United States District Judge, from proceeding with trial of a case, No. 79-1017-C, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, wherein the district court has found jurisdiction over petitioner, allegedly a Yugoslavian concern, under Missouri’s long-arm statute. Mo.Ann.Stat. § 506.500 (Vernon). The order complained of overruled petitioner’s motion to dismiss the action against it for want of jurisdiction on April 9, 1980. Judge Hungate made no certification as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and, indeed, from the materials before us it does not appear that he was asked to do so.

The petition for writ of prohibition, filed April 18, 1980, obviously involves an attempt to seek interlocutory review. *691Given a proper record on the jurisdictional issue we might well entertain an interlocutory appeal. *See and compare Hutson v. Fehr Bros., Inc.,*584 F.2d 833 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*439 U.S. 983, 99 S.Ct. 573, 58 L.Ed.2d 654 (1978). However, we should not ordinarily permit use of the extraordinary writ as a substitute for the interlocutory review procedure provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), *School Dist. of Kansas City v. State of Missouri,*592 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1979), and we decline to do so now.

The petition is dismissed without prejudice to resort to efforts to effect an interlocutory appeal. *See*FRAP 5(a).
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of O.J.P., a Child

Appellate case number: 01-21-00163-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-25857

Trial court: 246th District Court of Harris County

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellant, 

C.D.P. Appellant has filed her third motion for extension of time to file an appellant’s brief, 

requesting that this Court again extend the deadline for filing appellant’s brief. 

Appellant’s brief was originally due on May 10, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). 

Appellant requests that this Court extend the deadline for filing appellant’s brief to July 14, 2021—

sixty-five days past the original due date. The motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due 

on July 14, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), (d).

No further extensions will be granted.

Because this appeal involves the termination of the parent-child relationship, the Court is 

required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of March 29, 2021, the date the 

notice of appeal was filed in this proceeding, so far as reasonably possible. See TEX. R. JUD.

ADMIN. 6.2, reprinted in TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. F app.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Julie Countiss_________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____June 17, 2021______
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
 
 The undersigned officer of Summit Properties Inc., the general partner of Summit Properties Partnership, L.P., (the "Operating Partnership") hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Operating Partnerships annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
 
 Date: March 12, 2004
 /S/ Steven R. LeBlanc
 Steven R. LeBlanc
 President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 12,046.

#### Fenton *v.*The State.

Intoxicating *Liquob.*— Judicial *Knowledge.*— Blackberry *Brandy.*— Courts take judicial notice that brandy is an intoxicating liquor, and the addition of .the word “ blackberry *”*to the word “ brandy ” merely designates a particular kind of brandy.

*¡Same.*— Sale *on Sunday.*— Evidence.—Presumption.—Evidence that blackberry brandy was sold is sufficient to sustain a conviction for selling intoxicating liquor on Sunday, as the presumption is that the basis of the liquor was brandy.

From the Hamilton Circuit Court.

*W. Garver*and *F. B. Pfaff,*for appellant.

*F. T. Hord,*Attorney General, and *W. B. Hord,*for the State.

Elliott, J.

The evidence in this case shows that the appellant sold to James Frost less than a quart of blackberry brandy on Sunday, the 20th day of July, 1884, but does not show, in direct terms, that the liquor was intoxicating. The appellant insists that he is entitled to a reversal, for the reason that it was not proved that the liquor sold by him was intoxicating. We can not concur in this view.

*599Filed Feb. 20, 1885.

Brandy is ranked as an intoxicating liquor by writers upon the general subject, and that it is a liquor of that character is generally and commonly known. The fact is, therefore, one of which the courts will take judicial knowledge. The addition to the term *“*brandy *"*of the word “ blackberry ” does no more than designate it as a particular kind of brandy; it •does not indicate that the liquor was not brandy of some kind. The natural and reasonable presumption is that the basis of the liquor was brandy, and therefore intoxicating. If it was not the appellant should have shown it. This general subject was so thoroughly examined in *Myers*v. *State,*93 Ind. 251, that there is no necessity for further discussion. That case, it is proper to add, was followed in the recent cases of *Mullen*v. *State,*96 Ind. 304; *Stout*v. *State,*96 Ind. 407.

We can not reverse the judgment, because the trial court believed the testimony of the witness Frost, and did not believe that given by the appellant.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2
                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



<PAGE>


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, John Melnyk, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10KSB of  Industrial  Minerals,
Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made,  not  misleading  with  respect to the period  covered by this annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiary,  is made known to us by others within those  entities,  particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c)  presented  in  this  annual  report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

         a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



<PAGE>


6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 25, 2004

/s/John Melnyk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Melnyk, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary/Treasurer and Director
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000376

16-MAY-2014

08:29 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF STAFF LEASING, INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 INCLUDED IN FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,412
<SECURITIES>                                    32,022
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                       802
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,632
<PP&E>                                          35,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,313
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,490
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           221
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,778
<SALES>                                      2,375,522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,375,522
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,262,607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                78,573
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   720
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  68
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,432
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,037
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97
        

</TABLE>