alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="sjh">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-04-15T23:16:32Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-04-15T23:16:33Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-04-15T23:16:33Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="13854">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="sjh">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-04-15T23:16:32Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>WAS WITHDRGWN. 
</p>
<p>OVERRULED BY SUPREME COURT DEVISION 
</p>
<p>OPINION O-4238 </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7983

WARREN CHASE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION (DOC); ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

MARYLAND, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:09-cv-00955-CCB) 

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Warren Chase seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude Chase has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

 

DISMISSED
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 the annual report of SKRP 1, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:


     (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.


/s/ Richard Rappaport
---------------------------------------
Richard Rappaport
President (Principal Executive Officer)


/s/ Glenn Krinsky
---------------------------------------
Glenn Krinsky
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

Dated: March 31, 2006

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to SKRP 1, Inc. and will be retained by SRKP 1, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
- 796 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S heets 296 N ebraska R eports STATE v . SCHIESSER Cite as 296 Neb. 796



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v


### . M i c hael 

### R

. S c hiesser 

### , appella n t


### . ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed June 2, 2017. No. S-16-115. 

### Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, I n body 

### , R iedma nn 

### , and B ishop 

### , Judges, on appeal thereto from the District Court for Lancaster County, L ori 

### A

. M aret 

### , Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed. John S. Berry, of Berry Law Firm, for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Melissa R. Vincent, and, on brief, George R. Love for appellee. H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., W right 

### , M iller 

### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c y 

### , K el c h 

### , and F u n ke 

### , JJ. P er

### C uriam


### . Having reviewed the briefs and record and having heard oral arguments, we conclude on further review that the deci

sion of the Nebraska Court of Appeals in State v. Schiesser , 24 Neb. App. 407, 888 N.W.2d 736 (2016), is correct, and accord

ingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the district court. A ffirmed


### . Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 07/07/2017 09:10 AM CDT
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
dated November 7, 1996 on the Provider Segment of Magellan Health Services,
Inc. and to all references to our Firm included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement.


                                                  ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
April 13, 1998
IoT Areas- Option 1 Diagram 

1) Smart Traffic 

and Transit Smart Traffic 

2) Augmented 

Logistics and 

Supply Chain

Logistics 

and Supply 

Chain

9) Consumer

8) Smart Homes 

7) Healthcare

6) Public 

Safety- (show 

camera on building)

5) Environmental 

Monitoring

4) Precision 

Agriculture

3) Sustainable 

and Critical 

Infrastructure
Barriers 

Cross Market 

Cybersecurity

Privacy and data ownership

Standards and Interoperability 

Skills, education, workforce 

development

Regulations and commerce

Policies

International engagement
Opportunities

Cross Market 

Cybersecurity

Privacy and data ownership

Standards and Interoperability 

Skills, education, workforce 

development

Regulations and commerce

Policies

International engagement
Recommendations

Cross Market 

Cybersecurity

Privacy and data ownership

Standards and Interoperability 

Skills, education, workforce 

development

Regulations and commerce

Policies

International engagement
IoT AreasOption 2 

Diagram 1) Smart Traffic 

and Transit

2) Augmented 

Logistics and 

Supply Chain

3) Sustainable 

and Critical 

Infrastructure

4) Precision 

Agriculture 5) Environmental 

Monitoring

6) Public 

Safety

7) Healthcare

8) Smart Homes 

9) Consumer
Barriers

Cross Market 

Cybersecurity

Privacy and data ownership

Standards and 

Interoperability 

Skills, education, workforce 

development

Regulations and commerce

Policies

International engagement
Opportunities

Cross Market 

Cybersecurity

Privacy and data ownership

Standards and 

Interoperability 

Skills, education, workforce 

development

Regulations and commerce

Policies

International engagement
Recommendations 

Cross Market 

Cybersecurity

Privacy and data ownership

Standards and 

Interoperability 

Skills, education, workforce 

development

Regulations and commerce

Policies

International engagement
Verticals/Markets/

Application areas

9) 

Consumer

8) Smart 

Homes 

7) 

Healthcare

5) 

Environme

ntal 

Monitorin g

6) Public 

Safety- (show 

camera on 

building)

1) Smart 

Traffic and 

Transit

4) Precision 

Agriculture

2) 

Augmented 

Logistics 

and Supply 

Chain Other

Skills, education, workforce development

Policies

Regulations and commerce

International engagement

Standards and Interoperability

Privacy and Data Ownership

Cybersecurity

Sustainable infrastructure

Digital 

enablers

Market 

enablers

Policy 

enablers

Economic 

enablers
Community Resilience Workshop - Data Needs for Resilience Planning and Decision-Making

19

Session 3: Community Resilience Priorities and Solutions

Jane Cage, InsightFive22, Joplin, MO, Citizens Advisory Recovery Team 

For over 25 years Jane was an entrepreneur and a COO running the 

internal operations of a regional IT networking company. She and her 

partners grew the company from one location to seven across the 

Midwest. The partners sold to new ownership in 2012. Jane was 

recognized as one of the Top 100 Women in the IT Channel and inducted 

into the CompTIA IT Hall of Fame. Also, for over 12 years, she has been 

active as a peer group and meeting facilitator. 

In May of 2011 Joplin, Missouri was devastated by an EF-5 tornado that 

destroyed 1/3 of the city. Since that time, she's been heavily involved in 

the community's recovery as the volunteer leader of the CART (Citizens 

Advisory Recovery Team), the group that worked to develop a long-term vision for Joplin. She 

has seen firsthand what difficult work long-term community recovery really is and has had 

opportunities to work with cities across the country. In 2012, DHS awarded Jane the Rick 

Rescorla National Award for Resilience.

Today, Jane is active as a peer group and meeting facilitator, an instructor for the FEMA 

Emergency Management Institute, and continues her involvement in Joplin’s long-term recovery.

Abstract:

A Whole Community Approach to Recovery Data and Vision: The Role of Citizens

It takes the combined efforts of the entire community to accomplish a successful recovery. 

Qualitative and quantitative data can be obtained by enlisting the help of citizens and volunteers 

as true partners to elected and community officials. Hear the story of how Joplin citizens helped 

guide and support recovery through participation and interfacing with federal, state and local 

government.
#### Willis Hochensmith *v.*C. Warren.

Principal and Surety — Amount of Indebtedness — Presumption.

•Wbere a principal and ibis surety undertakes to pay another an amount found due from a third party upon settlement with the latter, the principal is presumed to know the amount of the indebtedness, as found by arbitrators, and it is the duty of the principal to derive his information in regard to the matter from the debtor.

APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 6, 1872.

*Lindsey, for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The obligation by the appellee, Warren, was a direct undertaking by him to pay the appellant whatever sum of money might be due the latter upon settlement with Sebree.

The inducement or consideration, even if required, for the execution of the writing by the appellee, is fully set forth, and his undertaking to pay, places him in default upon his failure to pay the sum found due on the settlement.

If the .principal can be made liable without notice the surety can also, and the principal certainly is presumed to know the amount of the indebtedness and the result of the arbitration. It was the duty of Warren to have derived his information from Sebree and not from the appellant.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. *Lowe v. Beckwith,*14 B. Monroe 150.

-, *for appellee.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ELIZABETH LUBECK and

ALAN LUBECK,

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

ALLIANT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, 

LLC, 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-04881

Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs, Elizabeth Lubeck and Alan Lubeck, by and through undersigned counsel, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby dismiss all claims asserted in 

this action against Defendant, Alliant Capital Management, LLC, with prejudice, each party to 

bear their/its own costs.

Dated: October 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

Elizabeth Lubeck and Alan Lubeck

By: /s/ Rusty Payton

Rusty A. Payton

PAYTON LEGAL GROUP

20 North Clark Street

Suite 3300

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(773) 682-5210

info@payton.legal

Arthur C. Czaja

LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR CZAJA

7521 N. Milwaukee Ave.

Niles, Illinois 60714

(847) 647-2106

arthur@czajalawoffices.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-04881 Document #: 8 Filed: 10/02/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:25
Summary of Salary



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 Summary of Salary arrangement for named executive officer. 
  
 The Compensation Committee has established a base annual salary of $127,500 for Joseph F. McGuire, the Company’s Chief Financial
Officer, for 2005.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000 OF STRATFORD  AMERICAN  CORPORATION AND ITS  SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,355,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,378,000
<PP&E>                                         129,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  96,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,503,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           64,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,304,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,503,000
<SALES>                                          1,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               184,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (151,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (151,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (151,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, R. Michael Andrews, Jr., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Buffets Holdings, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s Board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       /s/ R. Michael Andrews, Jr.     R. Michael Andrews, Jr.    Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer)    Date: September 25, 2007
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 2, 2017 523052 

________________________________

In the Matter of JASPER 

MITCHELL,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: November 29, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Rose and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Jasper Mitchell, Coxsackie, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and

Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a

prison disciplinary rule.

A search of petitioner's cell disclosed, on top of his cell

locker, a partially smoked, rolled cigarette containing a green

leafy substance that smelled like and tested positive for

marihuana. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with

drug possession. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he

was found guilty of the charge and the determination was upheld

on administrative appeal with a reduced penalty. This CPLR

article 78 proceeding ensued.
-2- 523052 

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive tests result

and related documentation provide substantial evidence to support

the determination of guilt (see Matter of McMaster v Annucci, 138

AD3d 1289, 1289 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016]; Matter of

Starling v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision,

123 AD3d 1195, 1196 [2014]). Contrary to his claim, a reasonable

inference of possession arose by virtue of petitioner's control

over the locker area of his cell (see Matter of Hill v

Venettozzi, 144 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2016]; Matter of Perkins v

Annucci, 129 AD3d 1421, 1421-1422 [2015]). Petitioner's denial

that marihuana was found in his cell or that he possessed it

created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve

(see Matter of Bartello v Annucci, 142 AD3d 1194, 1194 [2016]). 

To the extent that petitioner argues that he was denied the right

to view or inspect the substance in question, the Hearing Officer

explained that the small quantity of marihuana found was used up

in the testing process and, thus, he was not improperly denied

access to it (see Matter of Morgan v Goord, 10 AD3d 792, 793

[2004]). Petitioner's remaining challenges, including those

regarding the search of his cell and the testing procedures, were

not raised at the hearing and, accordingly, they are unpreserved

for our review and may not be considered (see Matter of Khan v

New York State Dept. of Health, 96 NY2d 879, 880 [2001]; Matter

of Redmon v Smith, 141 AD3d 1071, 1071 [2016]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Rose and Mulvey, JJ.,

concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### Maryette Nicholas v. Michael Nicholas.

*Limorce*— Affirnumce.

Where a decree oí divorce granted to the wife rests wholly on the testimony, an appellate court ought not to reverse it unless convinced that it must have reached a different conclusion'if it had been in the place of the lower court and had its opportunities for deciding correctly.

Appeal from Clinton. (Y. H. Smith, J.)

Jan. 17.

Feb. 27.

Divorce bill. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*J. O. Selden*and *J. H. Fedewa*for complainant.

*H. & H. F. Walbridge*for defendant.

Graves, C. J.

The view to be taken of this case depends exclusively on the testimony, and it would serve no useful purpose to write out a discussion on it. Scattered through the large record there are many traces of truth and of untruth, and numerous instances of coloring and of exaggeration. There is much to believe and much to disbelieve, and the case is one of those where the decision of the judge exercising primary jurisdiction on matters of fact ought not to be overruled by a court of appeal except upon clear and satisfactory grounds. The. appellate tribunal ought to be fully persuaded that it *must*have reached a different conclusion had it occupied the position of the court appealed from and been favored with all the advantages of that court for judging rightly.

Acting on this idea of what is proper it is our duty to affirm the decree.

Cooley and Marston, JJ. concurred.