alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John DOLAN, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR OWCP, United States Department of Labor Kvaerner Philadelphia Shipyard; Signal Mutual Indemnity Association.

No. 04-2002.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Feb. 15, 2005.

Decided Feb. 23, 2005.

*513Bruce D. Zeidman, Haddonfield, NJ, for Petitioner.

Christopher J. Field, Field, Womack & Kawczynski, South Amboy, NJ, for Respondent.

Before SLOVITER, AMBRO and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge.

Because we write solely for the benefit of the parties, we do not set forth the facts giving rise to this petition for review. Petitioner John Dolan petitions us to set aside the February 12, 2004 order of the Benefits Review Board (“Board”) affirming an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)’s denial of Dolan’s claim for various benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901*et seq.,*for harm allegedly sustained as a result of a work-related injury. For the reasons given below, we deny the petition.1

We review the Board’s order “ ‘for error of law and to assure ... that it has properly adhered to its scope of review.’ ” *Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kramer,*305 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.2002) (quoting *Walker v. Universal Terminal and Stevedoring Corp.,*645 F.2d 170, 172 (3d Cir.1981)). In turn, the Board was obliged to affirm the decision of the ALJ if it was supported by substantial evidence and in accord with the law. *Id.*

We find no error in the Board’s conclusion that “the [ALJ]’s decision as a whole demonstrates that he found that an accident did not occur at work on September 7, 2001 as alleged by claimant.” Petitioner’s Appendix at 3. In fact, we are hard pressed to imagine a reasonable construction to the contrary.

The record contains ample evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion that Dolan failed to establish that an accident occurred. As the Board notes, the ALJ provided a host of “rational reasons for finding that a specific work-related accident did not occur on September 7, 2001,” among them a determination that Dolan lacks credibility and has contradicted himself on numerous occasions in describing both the alleged injury and the pertinent events that have occurred since the injury. *Id.*

Dolan primarily argues that the Board and ALJ committed legal error in failing to conclude that his allegations were suffi*514cient to trigger a presumption that his claim for compensation falls within the provisions of the Act. *See*33 U.S.C. § 920(a). Like the Supreme Court in *U.S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Director, OWCP,*455 U.S. 608, 102 S.Ct. 1312, 71 L.Ed.2d 495 (1982), we conclude that “[t]he [ALJ], however, disbelieved [Dolanj’s allegations and marshaled substantial evidence to support his findings.” *Id.*at 615. In this context, the statutory-presumption does not apply.

We conclude, like the Board, that Dolan has “raised no reversible error” and thus deny his petition for review.

1

. We have jurisdiction to review this petition under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c).
#### WARREN JONES COMPANY, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.

No. 77-3986.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 25, 1980.

David E. Ketter, Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

Richard W. Perkins, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., argued for appellee; M. Carr Ferguson, Tax Div., Washington, D. C., on brief.

Before GOODWIN and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Spencer M. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the decision of the Tax Court reported at 68 T.C. 837 (1977).
EXHIBIT 12.02

CERTIFICATION

I, Owen A. Anderson, Chief Financial Officer of International Hi-Tech Industries Inc., certify that;

(1)	I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of International Hi-Tech Industries Inc.

(2)	Based on my knowledge, this 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;

(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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)	The company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and 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 company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this 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 company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the company's most recent fiscal year end that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)	The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:   	July 19, 2006

/s/ Owen A. Anderson		By: 	Owen A. Anderson
Title:	Chief Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

STEVEN JACKSON, DOC #558622, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2814 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 25, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christopher C. Sabella, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTRATION FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION OF 805 PARK AVENUE CONDOMINIUM, ET AL.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KEVIN YOUNG.

September 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 23

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 related to the Bedford Bancshares,  Inc. 1994 Stock Option
Plan  of our  report  dated  October  23,  2002,  relating  to the  consolidated
financial  statements  of Bedford  Bancshares,  Inc.  appearing in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2002.


                                                   /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   BDO Seidman, LLP


Richmond, Virginia
December 19, 2002
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 :
 1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Harris Preferred Capital Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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;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 Harris Preferred Capital Corporation as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    Harris Preferred Capital Corporations other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Harris Preferred Capital Corporation 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 Harris Preferred Capital Corporation, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of Harris Preferred Capital Corporations disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this 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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in Harris Preferred Capital Corporations
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during Harris Preferred Capital
Corporations most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect Harris Preferred Capital Corporations internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    Harris Preferred Capital Corporations other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Harris
Preferred Capital Corporations auditors and the audit committee of Harris Preferred Capital
Corporations board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
Harris Preferred Capital Corporations ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in Harris Preferred Capital Corporations internal controls over
financial reporting.
 Date:   May 14, 2007
    /s/ Pamela C. PiarowskiPamela C. PiarowskiChief Financial Officer
POWER OF ATTORNEY




     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned
does hereby appoint and constitute Richard J. Coburn and
Norman L. Milliard and each of them as his agent and attorney-in-
fact to execute in his name, place and stead (whether on behalf
of the undersigned individually or as an officer or director of
Accent Color Sciences, Inc. or otherwise) the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Accent Color Sciences, Inc. for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1997 an any and all amendments thereto and to
file such Form 10-K and any such amendment thereto with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  Each of the said attorneys
shall have the power to act hereunder with or without the other.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
instrument this 23rd day of March, 1998.




/s/ Richard J. Coburn
Richard J. Coburn


/s/ Richard Hodgson
Richard Hodgson


/s/ Norman L. Milliard
Norman L. Milliard


/s/ Willard F. Pinney, Jr.
Willard F. Pinney, Jr.


/s/ Robert H. Steele
Robert H. Steele
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Reginald Jackson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04733-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: January 5, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9610 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Letterhead

                                   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                   One Metropolitan Square
                                   Suite 2200
                                   St. Louis  MO  63102-2737
                                   Telephone (314) 436-3200
                                   Facsimile (314) 241-3371

             Consent of Independent Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statements of RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. on
Form S-8 (File No. 33-90608, 333-33293 & 333-33317) of our
report dated February 9, 1999, except for Note 13 for which
the date is March 15, 1999, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedules of RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc., which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
March 15, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2813 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2813

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 19504 Linden Boulevard in St. Albans, New York, as the ``Archie 
                    Spigner Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2004

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 19504 Linden Boulevard in St. Albans, New York, as the ``Archie 
                    Spigner Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ARCHIE SPIGNER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 19504 Linden Boulevard in St. Albans, New York, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Archie Spigner Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Archie 
Spigner Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


                       CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




William F. Garrett,  the President and Chief  Executive  Officer of Delta Mills,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge:

     1.   The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  January 1,
          2005  of  the  Company  (the   "Report")   fully   complies  with  the
          requirements  of  section  13(a)  or  15(d),  as  applicable,  of  the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

The foregoing certification is made solely for the purpose of complying with the
requirements  of Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.
1350)  and  may not be  relied  upon  by  anyone  for  any  other  purpose.  The
undersigned  expressly  disclaims any  undertaking to update such  certification
except as required by law.






Date    February 15, 2005                By: /s/ William F. Garrett
      ------------------------------     ------------------------------------
                                         William F. Garrett
                                         President & Chief Executive Officer



A  signed  copy  of  this  written  statement  required  by  section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jamie Adkins","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jamieladkins-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2\/","title":"NASA Wallops Launches 3 Rockets During Eclipse in Virginia","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CeUbsA4ykA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasa-wallops-launches-3-rockets-during-eclipse-in-virginia\/\">NASA Wallops Launches 3 Rockets During Eclipse in Virginia<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasa-wallops-launches-3-rockets-during-eclipse-in-virginia\/embed\/#?secret=CeUbsA4ykA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Wallops Launches 3 Rockets During Eclipse in Virginia” — NASA\" data-secret=\"CeUbsA4ykA\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/wff-2024-029-003.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":429}
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 DON PADILLA and GERI PADILLA,

3 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

4 v. No. 29,223

5 BRENT P. TOWNSLEY and JANELL M. TOWNSLEY,

6 husband and wife, and SPECIALTY BUILDER, INC., 

7 Defendants-Appellants.

8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

9 Nan G. Nash, District Judge

10 Robert D. Gorman

11 Albuquerque, NM

12 for Appellees

13 Madison, Harbour & Mroz, P.A.

14 Gregory D. Steinman

15 Rachel A. Bayless

16 Albuquerque, NM 

17 for Appellants

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

19 VIGIL, Judge.

20 Defendants appealed from an order denying their motions in limine, and from

21 the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Court issued a

22 calendar notice proposing to dismiss the case because it was not an appeal from a final
2

1 order. In response to our calendar notice, Defendants have given notice to this Court

2 that they do not oppose summary dismissal in this case. Therefore, for the reasons

3 discussed in our calendar notice, we dismiss the appeal. 

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 

6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

7 WE CONCUR:

8 

9 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

10 

11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES MCPARTLAND.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### THE STATE v. STEINEMANN, Appellant.

Division Two,

April 23, 1901.

Criminal Law: assault : indictment. An indictment for assault with a pistol which charges that the pistol is a deadly and dangerous weapon, and that the assault was made feloniously and with intent to kill, need not specify the manner in which the assault was made.

Appeal from Oregon Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *W. N. Evans,*Judge.

Akfirmed.

*W. F. Durham*and *S. A. Handy*for appellant.

*Edward O. Crow,*Attorney-General, for the State.

An assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill is a felony, and it has been held not necessary to charge the manner in which the assault was made. State v. Chandler, 24 Mo. 371; State v. Clayton, 100 Mo. 516; State v. Wood, 124 Mo. 412: State v. Jones, 86 Mo. 623.

*189BUEGESS, J.

On the twenty-eighth day of February, 1899, the defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Oregon county, and his punishment fixed at two years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary under an indictment charging that he at the “county of Oregon in and upon one G. M. Oooper feloniously, on purpose and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault and then and there, on purpose and of his malice aforethought, feloniously assault and wound him, the said G. M. Oooper, with a pistol loaded with leaden balls and gunpowder, which was then and there a deadly and dangerous weapon, which said pistol he, the said John Steinemann, then and there had and held in his hands with intent him, the said G. M. Oooper, on purpose and of his malice aforethought, feloniously to kill and murder, against the peace and dignity of the State.”

The case is before us upon' defendant’s appeal.

In the motion in arrest, the point is made that the indictment is defective in that it does not charge that defendant-shot or used said pistol as a club, and fails to charge that defendant shot one G. M. Oooper at all. But this was not necessary.

The indictment charges that the pistol was a deadly and dangerous weapon, and that the assault was made feloniously with intent to kill, and it makes no difference as to the manner in which the assault was made. [State v. Chandler, 24 Mo. 371; State v. Clayton, 100 Mo. 516; State v. Jones, 86 Mo. 623.]

There was an abundance of evidence to justify the verdict of the jury, and this objection asserted in the motion for *a*new trial is entirely without merit.

Finding no reversible error in the record we affirm the judgment.

Sherwood, P. *J.,*and *Gantt, J.,*concur.