alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

179 

CAF 14-00167 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF SEAN G. TRASK, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

SUZANNE G. BUCK, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

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

CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, APPELLANT.

(APPEAL NO. 24.) 

 

JULIE B. HEWITT, MAYVILLE, FOR APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County

(Judith S. Claire, J.), entered October 17, 2013 in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order dismissed the

objection of the Chautauqua County Department of Health and Human

Services and affirmed the order of the Support Magistrate. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is 

unanimously affirmed without costs (see Matter of Chautauqua County

Dept. of Health & Human Servs. v Matteson, ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 20,

2015]).

Entered: March 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 97-60498

____________

MOZELL VEAL, FELIX VEAL, WALLACE DUNN, AND JOE

WOODS, Ed.D.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

LOUIS P WRIGHT, DORIS G BRIDGEMAN, ACIE

WHITLOCK, JR, LYNN EVANS, AND JOSHUA J WIENER,

members of the JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC

SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and DAN

MERRITT, Ed.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:96-CV-654BN)

April 10, 1998

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mozell Veal, Felix Veal, Wallace Dunn, and Joe Woods appeal

the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the

defendants on their claims of violation of procedural and

substantive due process rights secured by the U.S. and Mississippi

Constitutions, breach of contract, and pendant state law claims.

After reading the briefs, hearing oral argument, and reviewing the
record in this case, we affirm for essentially the same reasons as

stated in the district court’s opinion. 

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul F. Foley,certify that:

1.               I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MAIR Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended September 30, 2004;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

4.               The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.               Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The Company’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a.               Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b.              Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 15, 2004

 
| /s/ PAUL F.  FOLEY |
|--------------------|

 

Paul F. Foley

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

----
#### J. W. Seale *v.*Joseph Brandenburg.

Boundaries — Immovable and Natural Objects — Course and Distance ' Yield — Corner Trees Corresponding with Patent.

Where the lines and comers objects as fixed by the survey, the course and distances must and on the contrary when the lines and courses have been efcourses in the patent must govern. Corner trees being proven correspond with the calls of the patent is prima facie evidence the survey was so located.

APPEAL PROM OWSLEY CIRCUIT COURT.

September 10, 1872.

OpinioN by

Judge Pryor:

The only difficulty presented in this case is in ascertaining the true boundary of the 2500-acre survey to Craig. As a means of ascertaining the real line and courses it was made necessary to survey the whole of the 5000 acre tract patented to Timothy Combs, the Craig tract forming a part of, and included by that patent. The report of the surveyor made in this case by one evidently conversant with such business, shows that the courses and distances as called for in the patent do not correspond with, or run to the comers as claimed by either party. The bend of the river laid down on the plat of the patent and where the line corners at letter D would never be reached by any of the surveys claimed by the appellant.

On the appellant’s plan survey corner to the river, this corner being in the north or back line of the survey, the distance to the river is 1520 poles when by the calls of the patent it would only be 900 poles.

The plaintiff has failed to any corresponding with those of the patent. The line as claimed b,y *792him terminates in different ground and at different natural objects. The survey as claimed by the appellee, although not corresponding with the courses and distances of the patent in every particular, is established as the true survey, not only by the surveyor, but by twelve or fifteen witnesses who have been familiar with the lines and courses of the patent for many years, and many of them deriving their information as to the true corner from those at the time in possession. Several of the corners of the patent are well established by the proof of the appellee and are in the survey as claimed by him'. The preponderance of testimony is certainly in favor of the lines and corners as fixed by the red circles on the surveyor’s report beginning at 1, and running to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

J. *W. Seale, for appellant.*

*Thomas Murrell, for appellee.*

The rule of law is well settled that where the lines and corners correspond with the immovable and natural objects as fixed by the survey, the course and distances must yield, and on the contrary where the lines and courses have been effaced the courses in the patent must govern. *Dimmitt v. Lashbrook,*2 Dana, 2.

Corner trees being proven to correspond with the calls of the patent is prima facie evidence that the survey was so located.

The judgment of the Court below is *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 1999 and condensed
consolidated statement of operations for the quarter ended March 31, 1999, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>           0001049624
<NAME>          ESG RE LTD.
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          200,658
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                               0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                 0
<EQUITIES>                                          0
<MORTGAGE>                                          0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                       0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                218,489
<CASH>                                         10,625
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              3,020
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         69,527
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                629,539
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                70,288
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                           196,966
<POLICY-OTHER>                                      0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                               0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       13,924
<OTHER-SE>                                    226,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  629,539
<PREMIUMS>                                    143,566
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             3,300
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                    817
<BENEFITS>                                     34,751
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    18,810
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,157
<INCOME-TAX>                                      166
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3,991
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.29
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                      0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                 0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                  0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                    0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                     0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                             0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BUFFALO MINING COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

HOBERT DILLON; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

No. 96-2034

WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board.

(95-1719-BLA)

Argued: July 7, 1997

Decided: October 21, 1997

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and

HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Sannie Overly, JACKSON & KELLY, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioner. Kelly Rosetta Charnock, SHAFFER & SHAFFER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondent Dillon; Barry H.

Joyner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director. ON BRIEF: Anthony J. Cicconi,
SHAFFER & SHAFFER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondent

Dillon. J. Davitt McAteer, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire,

Associate Solicitor, Christian P. Barber, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Edward Waldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Buffalo Mining Company (Buffalo) petitions for review of a decision by the Benefits Review Board (the Board) affirming an award of

black lung benefits to Hobert Dillon. Finding no error, we affirm.

Dillon applied for black lung benefits in 1991, after working for

Buffalo for at least ten years. An administrative law judge (ALJ)

awarded benefits, ruling that Dillon suffered from pneumoconiosis

arising from his coal mine employment and that he was totally disabled due to the disease. The Board affirmed the ALJ's finding of

total disability, but concluded that she had improperly relied on the

"true doubt" rule in determining that Dillon suffered from pneumoconiosis. See Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,

Dep't of Labor v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 281 (1994)

(holding that the true doubt rule violates the Administrative Procedure

Act). Accordingly, the Board vacated this finding and the finding that

Dillon's total disability was due to pneumoconiosis and remanded for

reconsideration. On remand, the ALJ again awarded benefits, concluding that Dillon had established the existence of pneumoconiosis

by a preponderance of the evidence and that he was totally disabled

due to pneumoconiosis. The Board affirmed.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and the parties' briefs, and

after careful consideration of the record, we conclude that the deci-

 2
sion of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we

affirm.

AFFIRMED

 3
Exhibit 3

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 697-12 Filed: 02/09/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:17918
Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 697-12 Filed: 02/09/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:17919
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, in connection with Annual Report of Kid Castle
      Educational Corporation, a Florida Corporation (the “Registrant”), on Form 10-Q
      for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission , the undersigned hereby certifies that:





1.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Registrant.





DATE:
              May 24, 2007
            BY:
            */s/
              MIN TAN YANG*MIN
              TAN YANGCHIEF
              EXECUTIVE OFFICER





DATE:
              May 24, 2007
            BY:
            /s/
              *SUANG-YI
              PAI*SUANG-YI
              PAICHIEF
              FINANCIAL OFFICER
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3884 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3884

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 615 East Houston Street in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Hipolito F. 
        Garcia Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2004

 Mr. Gonzalez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 615 East Houston Street in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Hipolito F. 
        Garcia Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 615 
East Houston Street in San Antonio, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27340]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Targeting Latently Infected Cells 
Without Reactivation (RO1).
    Date: December 8-9, 2014.
    Time: December 8, 2014, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 4H100, MSC 9823, 5601 
Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Time: December 9, 2014, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 3F100, MSC 9823, 5601 
Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Robert C. Unfer, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers 
Lane, Room 3F40B, MSC 9823, Rockville, Maryland 20892, 240-669-5035, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#63160d0506111100230d0a0b4d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44312a2221363627042a2d2c6a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

     Dated: November 12, 2014.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-27340 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21

- 859 V

UNPUBLISHED

ALEXIS LAINEZ and CESAR

MONTOYA

,

Petitioner s

,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 2 5 , 2021

Voluntary dismissal; Order

concluding proceedings

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1

On February 1 , 2021

, Alexis Lainez and Cesar Montoya filed a petition for

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §

300aa

— 1 0 through 34

. 2 Petitioner s allege d that their minor child died due to various

vaccination s that the child received on December 11 , 2020

. ECF no. 1

. O n May 20

, 2021

, Petitioner s filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. 3

In light of Petitioner s’ “notice of dismissal at any time before service of

respondent’s report” pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(A), this case is dismissed

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this

case

, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to

identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition,

I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755.

3 The May 7, 2021 order required the apparent Petitioners, Alexis Lainez and Cesar Montoya, to file

“Proof of Authority to File in a Representative Capacity” to comply with Vaccine Rule 2(c)(2)(C). The

apparent Petitioners did not file any probate documents to establish who has been appointed as the

executor(s) or personal rep resentative(s) of the minor child’s estate. Thus, it remains unclear whether

Alexis Lainez and Cesar Montoya had the authority to file this case on behalf of their minor child.
EXHIBIT 34

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-34 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:7656
Document title: Amazon.com Seller Profile: minghuangsheng-us

Capture URL: https://www.amazon.com/sp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=&isAmazonFulfilled=&isCBA=&marketplaceID=ATVPDKIKX0DER&orderID...

Capture timestamp (UTC): Thu, 27 May 2021 12:58:26 GMT Page 1 of 2

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-34 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:7657
Document title: Amazon.com Seller Profile: minghuangsheng-us

Capture URL: https://www.amazon.com/sp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=&isAmazonFulfilled=&isCBA=&marketplaceID=ATVPDKIKX0DER&orderID...

Capture timestamp (UTC): Thu, 27 May 2021 12:58:26 GMT Page 2 of 2

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-34 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:7658
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Quarterly Report of American Standard Companies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, G. Peter DAloia, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§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
Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report. /s/ G. Peter DAloia  
 April 30, 2004