alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1539

IDA M. JACKSON; VENUS O. JACKSON; AARON P. JACKSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus SUSAN WAHLGREN, f ormerly known as S. R. Hollinger, Trooper, Maryland State Police, Defendant - Appellee, and MARYLAND STATE POLICE; LARRY W. TOLLIVER, Colonel Superintendent Maryland State Police; D. B. MACLEAN, 1st Lieutenant Commander; SERGEANT CASPER; OFFICER GOLDMAN; OFFICER LASSIE; OFFICER HOUSE; OFFICER NORDSTRAM; J. O. HAMMELMANN, Major, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA93-2504-DKC) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ida M. Jackson, Venus O. Jackson, Aaron P. Jackson, Appellants ProSe. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Betty Stemley Sconion, Assistant Attorney General, KimberlyElizabeth Rice, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order denying relief ontheir 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.To the extent Appellants' notice of appeal brings up for consideration the district court's rulings in prior orders, we find no errorand affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jackson v. Maryland State Police , No. CA-93-2504-DKC (D. Md. Apr. 7, 1997; Apr. 12and Oct 21, 1996; June 20, 1995; Oct. 8 and Nov. 4, 1993). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AS AMENDED



I, Edgardo Mercadante, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DrugMax, 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 report; and



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this 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 report.



4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 we have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period of this annual report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and



c) disclosed in this report any change in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other
certifying officer 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 function):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which area reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



---

|                    |  |     |  |                        
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 16, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Edgardo Mercadante 
|                    |  |     |  | Edgardo Mercadante     
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR 5451-N-01]


Notice of Web Availability and Opportunity for Public Comment for 
Revisions to the Section 8 Renewal Policy Guide Book

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing 
Commissioner.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Through this notice, HUD announces the availability on its Web 
site of revisions to the Section 8 Renewal Policy Guide Book, which is 
HUD's comprehensive guidance for renewing expiring Section 8 contracts. 
In addition, HUD will be accepting and considering comments from the 
public, which should be submitted in accordance with the instructions 
in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. HUD will publish the draft 
changes to the Guide Book on its Web site, along with a transmittal 
notice summarizing the changes, at http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/mfhsec8.cfm during the public comment period.
    Comment Due Date: November 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this 
interim rule to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
Attention: Section 8 Renewal Guide, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 6134, 
Washington, DC 20410. Communications must refer to the above docket 
number and title. There are two methods of submitting public comments:
    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by 
mail posted by the due date to the Regulations Division, Office of 
General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 
Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
    2. Submission of comments by e-mail. Comments may be submitted by 
e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f3c0a0c1b060001573d0a010a180e03281a060b0a2f071a0b41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b487e786f72747523497e757e6c7a775c6e727f7e5b736e7f357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Facsimile (Fax) comments will not be accepted. All comments must be 
submitted by one of the two methods stated above.
    All communications must refer to the above docket number and title. 
Comments must specifically identify the page and paragraph number to 
which they refer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Mulholland, Office of 
Multifamily Housing Development, Office of Housing, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 6128, 
Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-3000, Ext. 2649.

    Dated: October 7, 2010.
Carol J. Galante,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-25904 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order filed January 5, 2012



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 11 -00042- CR

__________ JENNIFER MARIE VALLEY, Appellant

V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 29th District Court

Palo Pinto County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14161F

O R D E R
Th is appeal has been unduly stalled due to the failure of appellant’s retained counsel, Judith Mattern Hearn, to file an appellate brief. The brief was originally due on June 23, 2011. On June 22, counsel filed her first motion for extension, which this court granted. On August 8,
counsel filed her second motion for extension, which was also granted. On September 2, counsel filed her third motion for extension, which was also granted, extending the due date to October 7. After counsel failed to file a brief, this court entered a stand-and-deliver order on November 3.2

In the order, this court directed counsel to either file a brief by November 16, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. or appear in person at that time and explain the inordinate delay in the preparation of appellant’s brief. Counsel appeared in person at the designated time and informed the court that she expected to have the brief filed before the end of the week, which would have been Friday, November 18, 2011. In the interest of justice, this court afforded counsel extra time; we informed counsel by letter dated November 18 that the brief was due on or before December 2, 2011. After counsel again failed to file a brief, this court issued an order on December 15, 2011, in which we specifically ordered Judith Mattern Hearn to file a brief on behalf of appellant on or before 9:00 a.m. on December 22, 2011, in this court. In the order, we also informed counsel that, if she failed to obey the order, “a contempt proceeding may be initiated” against her. Despite being warned of impending contempt proceedings, counsel has yet to file an appellate brief. Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court. The trial court is instructed to conduct a hearing on or before February 3, 2012, to determine the following:
1. Whether Judith Mattern Hearn should be held in contempt of court ;

2. Whether Jennifer Marie Valley desires to prosecute this appeal; and
3. Whether Jennifer Marie Valley is indigent, or if not indigent, whether Judith Mattern Hearn has abandoned the appeal.
The trial court is directed to make appropriate findings and recommendations pursuant to T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 38.8(b). The clerk of the trial court is directed to prepare and forward to this court a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings, recommendations, and any orders of the trial court. The court reporter is directed to prepare and forward to this court the reporter’s record from the hearing. The supplemental records are due to be filed in this court on or before February 21, 2012. The appeal is abated.

PER CURIAM January 5, 2012 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak , J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7693

ERNEST DOE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-992-3-22BC) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 29, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Doe, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ernest Doe seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Doe’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Doe’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 2, 2000. Doe’s notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on November 13, 2000. Because Doe failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, 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
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26059]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2918]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

September 23, 2010.
    Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's 
Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is 
available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). 
Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by November 1, 2010. See 
Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1). Replies 
to oppositions must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions have expired.
    Subject: In the Matter of Implementation of Section 224 of the Act 
(WC Docket No. 07-245)
    A National Broadband Plan for our Future (GN Docket No. 09-51).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 4.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26059 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             526
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            4143
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  7000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      65407
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         169931
<ALLOWANCE>                                        485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  256704
<DEPOSITS>                                      143019
<SHORT-TERM>                                     40000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                832
<LONG-TERM>                                      40000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                       31623
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  256704
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3424
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  157
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  1078
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  4659
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1796
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2838
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1821
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 136
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    928
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         928
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7.572
<LOANS-NON>                                         25
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   440
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  485
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               485
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE 

LINDA W. WEISS,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

NY-0707-16-0149-J-1

DATE: February 5, 2016

Linda W. Weiss, Slingerlands, New York, pro se. *

Kimberly Negley, Esquire, St. Louis, Missouri, for the agency.

Stephen F. Butera, Esquire, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for the agency.

Xan DeMarinis, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Arthur S. Joseph

Chief Administrative Judge

FINAL DECISION (WITHOUT ANALYSIS AND FINDINS) 

On January 16, 2016, the appellant, SES-0670, Director, Albany, New 

York Stratton Veterans Administration Medical Center, timely filed this appeal 

 

* John Howard Breeze, Esquire, had been the appellant's representative since the filing of this 

appeal. On January 28, 2016, the appellant filed a pleading stating that Mr. Breeze is no longer 

her representative because of his "medical status." Appeal File (AF), Tab 64. Therefore, the 

appellant is now appearing pro se.
2

challenging her removal from Federal service, effective January 12, 2106. AF, 

Tab 1. The Board has jurisdiction over this appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 713(e); 5 

U.S.C. § 7701(b)(1). For the reasons to be explained in a separate formal 

decision that will be issued on or before February 16, 2016, the agency's action is 

REVERSED.

________/S/______________________

Arthur S. Joseph

Chief Administrative Judge

NOTICE TO APPELLANT

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 713(e)(2), this decision is final and not subject to 

any further appeal.
### United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

02-1052, -1065

INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. and THE BURNHAM INSTITUTE,

Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, and

TELIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MERCK KGaA,

Defendant-Appellant, and

THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE and DR. DAVID A. CHERESH,

Defendants.

Donald R. Dunner , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant Me rck KGaA. With him on the brief were Thomas H. Jenkins

, David A. Manspeizer , and Rachel H. Townsend . Of counsel on the brief

were M. Patricia Thayer , Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP, of San Francisco, California; and William C. Rooklidge , Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, of Irvine, California. Of counsel was Esther H. Lim , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Ga rrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC.

Mauricio A. Flores , Campbell & Flores LLP, of S an Diego, California, argued for plaintiffs-cross appellants Integra LifeSciences I, Ltd. and The Burnham Institute. With him on the brief was David M. Beckwith . Of counsel on the brief were Raphael V. Lupo

, Mark G. Davis , and Natalia V. Blinkova , McDermott, Will & Emery, of Washington, DC. Of counsel

was Donna M. Tanguay

. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Senior Judge James M. Fitzgerald, District of Alaska

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

02-1052, -1065

INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. and THE BURNHAM INSTITUTE,

Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants,

and

TELIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MERCK KGaA,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE and DR. DAVID A. CHERESH,

Defendants.

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and PROST, Circuit Judges

.

O R D E R

The court has received a certified copy of the judgment from the Clerk of the

Supreme Court of t he United States in Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. , No. 03-

1237. The Supreme Court vacated this cour t's judgment, which was reported at 331 F.3d

860 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and remanded for proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.02-1052, -1065 2 Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The mandate is hereby recalled and the appeal is reinstated.

(2) The case is returned to the original merits panel.

(3) New briefs shall be fil ed, with particular attention paid to the Supreme Court

decision.

(4) The appellants' principal brief shall be due within 60 days of the date of filing

of this order. The dates for filing the remain ing briefs shall be in accordance with Fed. Cir.

R. 31(a). An original and 22 copies of all br iefs shall be filed, and two copies shall be

served on opposing counsel. The court sua sponte allows amicus briefs.

FOR THE COURT

_ Aug 17 2005

__ _ s/Jan Horbaly

_____ Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Donald R. Dunner, Esq. Mauricio A. Flores, Esq.