alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6566

JAMES ANTHONY BARNETT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF SAMUEL W. PAGE; NURSE JENNY THOMAS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cv-01064-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 21, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Anthony Barnett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Torin L. Fury, William L. Hill, FRAZIER 

HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Jay C. Salsman, HARRIS, CREECH,

WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Anthony Barnett, Jr., appeals the district court’s order and judgment 

dismissing his civil rights complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended 

that relief be denied and advised Barnett that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Barnett

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
      23.1








CONSENT
      OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS








TO:
      Global Diversified Industries, Inc.





As
      registered independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
      incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Global Diversified Industries, Inc. for
      the
      year ended April 30, 2005 of our report dated July 25, 2005 and contained in
      the
      Registration Statement No. 333-113009 of Global Diversified Industries, Inc.
      Form S-8 under the Securities Act of 1933 insofar as such report relates to
      the
      financial statements of Global Diversified Industries, Inc. for the year ended
      April 30, 2005.








/s/
      RUSSELL BEDFORD STEFANOU MIRCHANDANI LLP


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


Russell
      Bedford Stefanou Mirchandani LLP





McLean,
      Virginia


July
      25,
      2005
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2111 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2111

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
      Agencies, Federal Election Commission for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
      Agencies, Federal Election Commission for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR INDEPENDENT 
              AGENCIES, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, 
Federal Election Commission for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$71,250,000.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - RIN 0648-XD673

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of open public meetings.

# SUMMARY:

This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined in the agenda below.

# DATES:

The meeting is scheduled for January 12, 2015, 3-4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

# ADDRESSES:

Conference call. Public access is available at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Any member of the public wishing to attend may contact Heidi Lovett, (301) 427-8004; email:                         *heidi.lovett@noaa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The charter and other information are located online at                     *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/​ocs/​mafac/​.*

## Matters To Be Considered

The Committee is convening to discuss and finalize recommendations on the candidates for the new Climate and Marine Resources Task Force and the Aquaculture Task Force for submission to the NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator. Other administrative matters may be considered. This agenda is subject to change.

## Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Heidi Lovett, 301-427-8004 by January 2, 2015.

Dated: December 18, 2014.

Paul Doremus,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2014-30213 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Casey R.B., Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 887]

Appeal from an adjudication of the Steuben County Court (Peter C. Bradstreet, J.), rendered September 29, 2005. Defendant was adjudicated a youthful offender upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that said adjudication be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an adjudication upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45 [4]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention with respect to the alleged impropriety of the sentence *(see People v Rhymer,*3 AD3d 315, 316 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 745 [2004]; *People v Holmes,*306 AD2d 889 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 621 [2003]) and, in any event, his contention is without merit. The plea agreement provided that defendant would be sentenced to “possible *1201alternatives to incarceration, possibly community service and drug and alcohol related alternatives, along with five years probation.” Thereafter, defendant signed an agreement to enter the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court. The agreement expressly provided that, if defendant was terminated from the program based upon unsatisfactory performance, he would be sentenced to a term of incarceration of lVs to 4 years. Thus, County Court properly sentenced defendant to a term of incarceration of lVs to 4 years when defendant failed to complete the program *(see generally People v Valencia,*3 NY3d 714 [2004]; *People v Milner,*28 AD3d 873, 874 [2006]; *Rhymer,*3 AD3d at 316). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.
#### The Howard Carroll.1 Redmond *v.*The Howard Carroll.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

February 3, 1890.)

1. Collision — Tow and Sailing Vessel.

A t.ug with a tow, which, in a narrow channel, takes and maintains a course on the chance that a sailing vessel, beating in plain sight of her, and which she is bound and able to avoid, will know her intention, and break her tack on being signaled, is in fault if collision ensue.

2. Same — Size *air*Tug.

Tugs which undertake to tow large railroad floats about the harbor of New York must be of sufficient power to handle their floats easily and promptly, and able to avoid sailing vessels which they may meet in the course of their navigation.

In Admiralty.

Action for damages occasioned by collision between the schooner Early Bird and a tow in charge of the steam-tug Howard Carroll.

*Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich,*for libelants.

*Hyland & Zahriskie,*for claimant.

1

 Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of tho New York bar.

*160Benedict, J.

This is an action brought by the owners of the schooner Early Bird to recover damages to their vessel occasioned by a collision between that vessel and a tow, 'consisting of the steam-tug Howard Carroll, at the time towing along-side of her a car-float loaded with 10 cars. The tow was bound down the East river, between .Blackwell’s island and New York, the schooner beating .up the channel. The only question in the case is whether, under the circumstances proved, the ordinary rule, by which it is the duty of a steamer to avoid a sailing vessel, is to be applied to this tug. The case of *The A. P. Cranmer,*1 Fed. Rep. 255, (decided by this court in January, 1880,) affirmed, 8 Fed. Rep. 523, is relied on by the claimants as authority for rejecting the application of the rule in a case like this. The case of *The A. P. Cranmer*was a very different case. In that case a tow, consisting of two tugs having 17 canal-boats in tow, was run into by a schooner sailing free, and able, by a slight change, to avoid the tow without difficulty or delay. In this case the sailing vessel was beating in a narrow channel, where, in order to do anything to avoid the tow, it would be necessary for her to shorten her tack. The steamer, on the other hand, had but a single vessel in tow along-side, and was able to avoid the sailing vessel, tacking in plain sight ahead of her. Instead of taking means to avoid the sailing vessel, as she ought to have done, the tug took and maintained her course upon the chance that the sailing vessel would know her intention, and would break her tack upon being signaled by the tug. But if the tug was not able, through lack of power, to control the float, she was nevertheless in fault; for the safety of the harbor requires that the tugs which undertake to tow the large floats, now so largely employed to transport railroad cars about the harbor, should be of sufficient power to handle their floats easily and promptly, and able to avoid sailing vessels when they are met in the course of their navigation about the harbor. The libelants are entitled to a decree.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2079 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, Supreme 

Court, Care of the Building and Grounds for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The 

Judiciary, Supreme Court, Care of the Building and 

Grounds for fiscal year 2024. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 THE JUDICIARY, SUPREME COURT, CARE OF 

5 THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for The Judiciary Supreme Court, Care of the BuildVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:38 Apr 17, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2079.IH H2079

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2079 IH

1 ing and Grounds for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $14,434,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Lindsay Grobman, Appellant, v Rhonda Chernoff et al., Defendants, and Rhonda Grobman et al., Respondents.

[826 NYS2d 709]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated January 20, 2006, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Rhonda Grobman and Adam Chernoff which was to compel her to proceed to arbitration on the issue of whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendants Adam Chernoff and Rhonda Grobman which was to compel the plaintiff to proceed to arbitration on the issue of whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is denied.

At the conclusion of the damages phase of a bifurcated trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that the plaintiff had sustained an injury which resulted in a “permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member,” and thus constituted a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance *659Law § 5102 (d). The jury awarded the plaintiff damages for past pain and suffering and future medical expenses, but failed to award her damages for future pain and suffering. A judgment was entered upon the jury verdict, and the plaintiff appealed, contending, inter alia, that the damages verdict was inconsistent and the sums awarded inadequate. Although the defendants Adam Chernoff and Rhonda Grobman (hereinafter the defendants) cross-appealed from the judgment, they failed to perfect their cross appeal, and it was dismissed as abandoned. In a decision and order dated December 1, 2003 this Court concluded that the jury’s verdict finding that the plaintiff had sustained a permanent serious injury could not be reconciled with the failure to award her damages for future pain and suffering, and remitted the matter solely for a new trial on the issue of damages. The parties thereafter agreed to submit the issue of damages to arbitration, but a dispute arose as to whether the arbitration should encompass the issue of serious injury.

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to compel the plaintiff to proceed to arbitration on the issue of whether she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The jury’s determination that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury, which the defendants failed to challenge on appeal, constituted a final and binding determination of this issue, especially in light of its award of future medical expenses. Accordingly, the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury may not be relitigated in arbitration *(see Singh v Friedson,*10 AD3d 721 [2004]; *Beresford v Waheed,*302 AD2d 342 [2003]; *see also Matter of Welton Becket Assoc. v LLJV Dev. Corp.,*224 AD2d 268 [1996]; *Smyczynski v Genesis Mktg. Group of Am.,*185 AD2d 658 [1992]). Miller, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1759 

To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from implementing a congestion 

pricing program until an economic impact analysis is completed and 

made available to the public, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2023 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS (for herself and Mr. GOTTHEIMER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from implementing a congestion pricing program until an economic 

impact analysis is completed and made available to the 

public, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Economic Impact of 

5 Tolling Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1759 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF CONGES2 TION PRICING PROGRAM. 

3 The Secretary of Transportation may not implement, 

4 or authorize the implementation of, a congestion pricing 

5 program for any toll road, bridge, or tunnel until the date 

6 on which an economic impact analysis is completed and 

7 such analysis is made available to the public. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
----

Exhibit 31.2 

CERTIFICATION

I, John A. Luce, Chief Financial Officer ofPolydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the "Company") certify that: 

1.

I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10–Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2008;
2.

Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 
3.

Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the period presented in thisreport; 
4.

The Company’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a–15(e) and 15d–15(e) )andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f)) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have: 

(a) 

designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theCompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report wasbeing prepared; 

(b) 

designed such internal control overfinancial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting tobe designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statementsfor external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprincipals; 

(c) 

evaluated the effectiveness of theCompany’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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

(d) 

disclosed in this report any changein the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 
5.

The Company’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theCompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors:

(a) 

all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s abilityto 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 theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting. 
Dated: September 12, 2008 
/s/ John A. LuceChief Financial OfficerPolydex Pharmaceuticals Limited
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.28

                        SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Annual Retainer

      Members of the Board of Directors of Symbion, Inc. who are also officers
or employees of the Company receive no additional compensation, beyond that
which they receive as officers of the Company, for serving on the Company's
Board of Directors. Non-employee members of the Board receive a $10,000 annual
retainer for serving on the Board and an additional $5,000 annual retainer if
they serve on one or more Board Committees. The chairperson of the Audit and
Compliance Committee also receives a $4,000 annual retainer in addition to the
Board and Committee retainers.

Meeting Fees

      Non-employee members of the Board of Directors receive up to $6,000 per
year for attendance at Board meetings ($1,500 for attendance at regularly
scheduled meetings of the Board or $1,000 if the member participates in a
meeting by telephone). Non-employee directors are reimbursed for expenses
incurred in attending meetings of the Board and Board Committees.

Equity Incentives

      The Company maintains a Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan under
which options to purchase shares of its Common Stock are available for issuance
to the non-employee members of the Board of Directors. Each non-employee
director of the Company typically receives an annual grant of options to
purchase a number of shares determined by the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors. The options are exercisable at the fair market value of the
Common Stock on the date of grant, and each option becomes fully exercisable one
year from the date of grant. The options expire on the earlier of ten years
after the date of grant or immediately upon a director's termination on account
of fraud, dishonesty or other acts detrimental to the Company. In the event of
any other termination of a director, any vested options granted to the director
may be exercised for a period of 12 months after termination. Upon a change in
the control of the Company, as described in the Non-Employee Directors Stock
Option Plan, all options become immediately vested and exercisable.

      On May 10, 2005, each non-employee director received a grant of an option
to purchase 4,050 shares of Common Stock, exercisable at $23.68 per share, the
fair market value of the Common Stock on the date of the grant.