alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000477

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

AUSTIN ROSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

KAUA I POLICE DEPARTMENT;

OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, COUNTY OF KAUA I,

Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 5CCV-22-00023)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that:

(1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief

were due on or before October 11, 2022, and November 10, 2022,

respectively; 

(2) Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Austin Rosa

(Rosa) failed to file either document, or request an extension of

time;

(3) On November 29, 2022, the appellate clerk entered a

default notice informing Rosa that the time for filing the

statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the

matter would be called to the court's attention on December 9,

2022, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of

the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Rosa could request relief from default

by motion; and

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-22-0000477

19-MAY-2023

08:12 AM

Dkt. 18 ODSD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) Rosa has not taken any further action in this

appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, May 19, 2023.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Associate Judge

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7800
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERENCE JEROME RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-00-383) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 6, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terence Jerome Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Terence Jerome Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in which he sought reconsideration of the denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by the district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). 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 24
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-317553) pertaining to the Wyatt Stock Purchase Plan of Watson
Wyatt and Company,  formerly the Wyatt  Company,  of our report dated July 18,
1997,  with respect to the financial  statements  of Wellspring  Resources LLC
included in Form 10-K of Watson  Wyatt and Company for the year ended June 30,
1999.


/S/ Ernst & Young LLP
---------------------
Ernst & Young LLP

Jacksonville, Florida
September 27, 1999
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



                 AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
                   SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiary                                                     State of Incorporation
----------                                                     ----------------------
<S>  <C>                                                       <C>
1.   American Heritage Life Insurance Company                         Florida
2.   American Heritage Life Insurance Company of Texas                Texas
3.   Florida Associated Services, Inc.                                Florida
4.   American Heritage Service Company                                Florida
5.   Amherst Investment Company                                       Florida
6.   Colonial Reinsurance, Ltd.                                       British Virgin Islands
7.   ERJ Insurance Group, Inc.                                        Florida
subsidiaries of (1):
8.   Associated Insurance Services, Inc.                              Georgia
9.   First Colonial Insurance Company                                 Florida
10.  Fidelity International Company, Ltd.                             Bahamas
11.  St. Johns Bluff Timber Company                                   Florida
12.  AHL Select HMO, Inc.                                             Florida
13.  Columbia Universal Corporation                                   Nevada
14.  Concord General Life Insurance Company                           New Hampshire
subsidiary of (3):
15.  Realty Advisors Corporation                                      Florida
subsidiary of (3):
16.  Fidelity International Insurance Company, Ltd.                   Bahamas
subsidiaries of (13):
17.  Columbia Universal Life Insurance Company                        Texas
18.  Columbia Universal Financial Corporation                         Delaware
</TABLE>
#### The Apparel Corporation (Far East), Respondent, v H.J.M. Int’l Corp., Doing Business as H.J.M. International Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[975 NYS2d 881]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered May 16, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant H.J.M. Int’l Corp.’s motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

The very bills of lading on which the first and second causes of action are based conclusively establish H.J.M.’s defense to those causes of action *(see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). The bills of lading fail to show that H.J.M. had anything to do with the shipments they describe. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
#### SCHMEISER MFG. CO. v. LILLY et al.

(Circuit Court, D. Oregon.

February 27, 1911.)

No. 3,538.

1. Patents (§ 297*) — Infringement—Injunction- -Effect of Priob Adjudications.

In patent cases, conclusive effect is accorded by each of the Circuit Courts to a prior judgment of any one of them, whenever the patent, the question, and the evidence are the same.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. §§ 481-488; Dec. Dig. § 297*1

2. Patents (§ 288*) — Suits for Infringement — Equity Jurisdiction — Effect of Expiration of Patent.

The expiration of a patent pending a suit in equity for its infringement does not deprive the court of jurisdiction for the purpose of awarding damages.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Dec. Dig. § 288.*]

3. Patents (§ 828*) — Validity and Infringement — Draft Equalizer.

The Sehandoney patent No. 490,214 for a draft equalizer *held*valid and infringed.

In Equity. Suit by the Schmeiser Manufacturing Company against John Lilly and Richard McGilvery. Decree for complainant.

Charles E. Townsend and Wm. L- Brewster, for complainant.

E. V. Littlefield and W. R. Litzenberg, for defendants.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rop’r Indexes

BEAN, District Judge.

This is a suit for an injunction against and an accounting by the defendants who, it is alleged, infringed letters patent No. 490,214, granted to P. V. Sehandoney in January, 1893, for a draft equalizer. The validity of the patent has been before the Circuit Court for the Northern district of California and for the Eastern district of Washington, and in both cases was contested and the patent upheld upon substantially the same testimony as in the present case.

[1] This court will not examine anew the question which has been thus adjudicated, fot in patent cases conclusive effect is accorded by *632each of the Circuit Courts of the United States to a prior judgment of any one of them, wherever the patent, the question, and the evidence are the same in both cases. Office Spec. Mfg. Co. v. Winternight & Cornyn (C. C.) 67 Fed. 928; Wanamaker v. Enterprise Mfg. Co., 53 Fed. 791, 3 C. C. A. 672.

Upon the question of infringement, I do not deem it necessary to enter upon a detailed examination of the evidence or comparison of the two devices. It appears plain to me that the Hines patent, which was being used by the defendants at the time this suit was commenced, embodies all the essential elements of the complainant’s patent. They were both intended and designed for the same purpose and perform the same office in substantially the same way. The differences consist wholly in structural details, but the fundamental essential of the two patents is the same.

[2] The complainant’s patent has expired since the commencement of this suit, but that does not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of awarding damages. Ross v. Ft. Wayne, 63 Fed. 466, 11 C. C. A. 288.

[3] Decree will be entered in favor of complainant, and the case referred to a commissioner to ascertain and report the amount of damages, if any.. Costs will be determined upon final hearing.
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

###### International Trade Administration

This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 3705, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue., NW, Washington, D.C.

*Docket Number: 09-017.*                     Applicant: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL, Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 20281, May 1, 2009.                 

                    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as this instrument is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was ordered. Reasons: The foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We                           ( print page 27017)                        know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which is being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument.                

Dated: June 1, 2009.

Christopher Cassel,

Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Import Administration.

[FR Doc. E9-13196 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Kevin W. Stanley, Deceased. Diane R. Stanley, as Executrix of Kevin W. Stanley, Deceased, Appellant; Lawrence J. Mattar, Esq., as Guardian ad Litem for Ashley Stanley, a Minor, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of the Estate of Kathleen A. Stanley, Deceased. Richard T. Stanley, as Administrator of the Estate of Kathleen A. Stanley, Deceased, Appellant; Lawrence J. Mattar, Esq., as Guardian ad Litem for Ashley Stanley, a Minor, et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 14, 2011;

decided May 3, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that *874the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**




Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
      and
      (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UNITED STATES Code)




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
      “Company”), does hereby certify that:




The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Form
      10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Dated: May
              14, 2007/s/
                Robert CristRobert
                A. CristChief
                Financial Officer
ex_396160.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO.3 TO


 


VERISK ANALYTICS, INC.


 


2012 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN, AS AMENDED


 


This Amendment No. 3 (this “Amendment”) to the Verisk Analytics, Inc. 2012 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), is effective as of June 1, 2022. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Plan.


 


	 	
			1.

				
			Section 23 of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

			



 


Term of Plan. The Plan shall become effective as of October 1, 2012, subject to its approval by the stockholders of the Company as described in paragraph 20. The Plan shall continue in effect until such time as the Plan is terminated in accordance with paragraph 18.


 


	 	
			2.

				
			Except as set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

			



 


This Amendment was authorized, adopted and approved by the Board on May 18, 2022.


 


VERISK ANALYTICS, INC.


 


By: _/s/ Kathy Card Beckles_______________


Kathy Card Beckles


Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
#### TRAYFORD v. BALL.

Civil Action No. 3685.

District Court, W. D. New York.

March 17, 1948.

James F. Kelly, of Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff.

George L. McKnight, of Buffalo, N. Y., for defendant.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

The suit herein its unusual. It has been brought by the tenant rather than the Federal Housing Expediter.

This is a motion for summary judgment, and also for allowance of counsel fee. The only matter to be considered, as it appears to me, is whether the denial of wilful violation of an order raises an issue. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that the defendant has not pleaded want of wilfulness. This seems not to be the fact.

The conclusion is that the summary judgment must be denied unless the plaintiff consents to the recovery of $120 on account of excessive rent and $60 counsel fee and costs, in which case summary judgment is granted in the amount of $180 and costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL DEWAYNE CLARK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00017-MR-WCM-1;

1:22-cv-00216-MR)

Submitted: July 31, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Dewayne Clark, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6018 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Dewayne Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). This Court will not 

issue a certificate of appealability absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck 

v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Clark 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6018 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

We, Lei Gu, Chief Executive Officer and Anthony K. Chan, Chief Financial Officer, of Zoom Technologies, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of our knowledge:

1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) 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.

Date: August 20, 2012

/s/ Lei Gu            
Lei Gu
Chief Executive Officer
and/s/ Anthony K. Chan
Anthony K. Chan
Chief Financial Officer

The material contained in Exhibit 32.0 is not deemed "filed" with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2949 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2949

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
 To amend section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide authority 
  for increased fiscal year 2010 payments for temporary assistance to 
   United States citizens returned from foreign countries, to provide 
   necessary funding to avoid shortfalls in the Medicare cost-sharing 
 program for low-income qualifying individuals, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Aid to American Survivors 
of the Haiti Earthquake Act''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE PAYMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR 
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS RETURNED FROM FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES.
    Section 1113(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1313(d)) is 
amended by striking ``September, 30, 2003'' and all that follows and 
inserting ``September 30, 2009, except that, in the case of fiscal year 
2010, the total amount of such assistance provided during that fiscal 
year shall not exceed $25,000,000.''.
SEC. 3. QI PROGRAM FUNDING.
    Section 1933(g)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-
3(g)(2)) is amended--
        (1) in subparagraph (M), by striking ``$412,500,000'' and 
    inserting ``$462,500,000''; and
        (2) in subparagraph (N), by striking ``$150,000,000'' and 
    inserting ``$165,000,000''.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF MEDICAID IMPROVEMENT FUND.
    Section 1941(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396w-
1(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting 
``$10,000,000''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF WILLIAMSON PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS, INC.

As independent oil & gas consultants, Williamson Petroleum Consultants, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the name
Williamson Petroleum Consultants, Inc. and references to Williamson Petroleum Consultants, Inc. and to the inclusion of and references to our report, or information contained therein,
entitled "Evaluation of Oil and Gas Reserves to the interests of Warren Resources, Inc. Effective December 31, 2009 for Disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission Williamson
Project 9.9370," prepared for Warren Resources, Inc., in the annual report on Form 10-K of Warren Resources, Inc. for the filing dated on or about
March 3, 2010.



Midland,
Texas
March 2, 2010

---



QuickLinks