alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6945

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARVIN BAILEY, a/k/a Head, a/k/a Larry Anderson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-191, CA-00-156-2) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clayton Reed Kaeiser, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Marvin Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bailey , Nos. CR-96-191; CA-00- 156-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 16 & May 17, 2001). 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
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,747]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 3, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Parker Hannifin Corporation, Nichols Portland Division, Portland, Maine. The workers at the subject facility produce gerotors.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15293 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission.

# Cancellation:

The Open Meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 21, 2009, was cancelled.

# Date and Time:

Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 10 a.m.

# Place:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

# Status:

This Meeting Will Be Open To The Public.

# Items to be Discussed: 

Correction and Approval of Minutes.

# Draft Advisory Opinion 2009-11:

Senator John Kerry and the John Kerry for Senate Committee, by Marc E. Elias, Esq. and Kate S. Keane, Esq.

Report of the Audit Division on the Ciro D. Rodriguez for Congress Committee.

Management and Administrative Matters.

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Mary Dove, Commission Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E9-14047 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
Opinion issued July 21, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00581-CV

———————————

IN RE CAROLYN FROST KEENAN, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator, Carolyn Frost Keenan, seeks mandamus relief 

from the trial court’s June 1, 2015 order denying her Motion to Compel Production of Ballots 

from River Oaks Property Owner’s, Inc.1

We DENY the petition for writ of mandamus and DISMISS all pending motions as 

moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Huddle. 

 

1

The underlying case is River Oaks Property Owners, Inc. v. Carolyn Frost Keenan, No. 

201403190, pending in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, the Hon. Jaclanel McFarland 

presiding.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 12-2208 

WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF OHIO, 

Plaintiff, Appellant, 

v. 

ADM ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

Defendant, Appellee. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND 

[Hon. William E. Smith, U.S. District Judge] 

Before 

Lynch and Selya, Circuit Judges, 

and Hillman,* District Judge. 

 Michael J. Daly, with whom Catherine R. Connors, Brooks R. 

Magratten, and Pierce Atwood LLP were on brief, for appellant. 

 Thomas J. Gallitano, Conn Kavanaugh Rosenthal Peisch & Ford, 

LLP, Jason P. Gosselin, and Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on brief 

for American Council of Life Insurers, amicus curiae. 

 Robert F. Weber, with whom Randy Olen was on brief, for 

appellee. 

July 16, 2015 

 * Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. 
- 2 - 

SELYA, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment 

entered by the United States District Court for the District of 

Rhode Island. See W. Reserve Life Assur. Co. of Ohio v. Conreal 

LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 270, 290 (D.R.I. 2010), on reconsideration in 

part sub nom. W. Reserve Life Assur. Co. of Ohio v. Caramadre, 847 

F. Supp. 2d 329 (D.R.I 2012). The underlying case was brought in 

diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and the 

substantive rules of decision emanate from Rhode Island law, see 

Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). 

We heard oral argument on November 6, 2013. Because the 

controlling issues were issues of Rhode Island law as to which 

substantial doubt existed, we certified two questions to the Rhode 

Island Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 6 of that court's Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See W. Reserve Life Assur. Co. of Ohio v. 

ADM Assocs., LLC, 737 F.3d 135, 143 (1st Cir. 2013). On June 17, 

2015, the Rhode Island Supreme Court furnished us with answers to 

the certified questions. See W. Reserve Life Assur. Co. of Ohio 

v. ADM Assocs., LLC, No. 2014-35-M.P., 2015 WL 3771841 (R.I. June 

15, 2015). 

Upon review of those answers, we issued a show-cause 

order, directing the appellant to show cause as to why the judgment 

of the district court should not be affirmed. The time set for a 

showing of cause having expired and no cause having been shown, we 

now affirm the judgment below substantially on the basis of the 
- 3 - 

answers to the certified questions furnished by the Rhode Island 

Supreme Court. 

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (this “Amendment No. 2”) is made by and between United Online, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Neil P. Edwards (the “Employee”), effective as of July 29, 2013.

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement on October 21, 2011, as amended by the Amendment dated as of January 25, 2013 (as amended, the “Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee now wish to amend the Agreement as set forth below.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:

 

1.                                      Section 1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the reference to “February 15, 2014” and replacing it with “February 15, 2015”.

 

2.                                      Except as modified by this Amendment No. 2, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Employee have executed this Amendment No. 2, in the case of the Company by a duly authorized officer, as of the date stated in the opening paragraph.

 

	
UNITED   ONLINE, INC.
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Mark R. Goldston
    	
 
    	
Date: July 29, 2013
    
	
By:
    	
Mark R. Goldston
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
EMPLOYEE
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Neil P. Edwards
    	
 
    	
Date: July 29, 2013
    
	
Neil P. Edwards
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

2
#### Juan Ayala, Jr., Respondent, v Mutual Housing Association, Inc., Respondent. Robert E. Hill, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Normandy Repairs, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 262]

*344Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered June 29, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Robert E. Hill, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Robert E. Hill, Inc. dismissing the complaint as against it.

The record establishes that plaintiff was employed by defendant Mutual Housing Association, Inc. (MHA) as a porter at its premises at 3850 Sedgwick Avenue, was paid by MHA, was injured in the course of his employment, and was covered by MHA’s workers’ compensation insurance policy. Furthermore, the moving defendant was MHA’s managing agent at the premises, whose employee directed, supervised and controlled the daily work duties of plaintiff, his immediate supervisor and the other employees. Hence, MHA surrendered control and supervision of the daily operation of the premises to the moving defendant which, as a matter of law, may be deemed plaintiffs special employer *(see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp.,*78 NY2d 553, 557-558 [1991]), and is thus shielded from liability here by general employer MHA’s workers’ compensation policy *(see id.*at 560; Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/16/2015 10:18:22 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Georgia Exploration, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 (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.









Dated: November 14, 2006

/s/ Sokhie Puar

Sokhie Puar

President and Principal Financial Officer
#### Don J. Peters, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Carlene Cowan, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

[823 NYS2d 113]

In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff in action No. 1 appeals, and the plaintiff in action No. 2 separately appeals, as limited by their respective notices of appeal and briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated November 23, 2004, as granted the cross motion of the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation for summary judgment dismissing their respective complaints insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

“Evidence of negligence is not enough by itself to establish liability. It must also be proved that the negligence was the cause of the event which produced the harm sustained by one who brings the complaint” *(Sheehan v City of New York,*40 NY2d 496, 501 [1976]). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly granted the cross motion of the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (hereinafter HHC) for summary judgment dismissing the complaints insofar as asserted against it on the ground that any alleged negligence on the part of HHC’s Emergency Medical Service workers in failing properly to secure the area of the initial motor vehicle accident was not a proximate cause of the second accident, but merely furnished the condition or occasion for its occurrence *(see Saviano v City of New York,*5 AD3d 581, 582 [2004]; *Whitehead v Reithoffer Shows,*304 AD2d 754, 755 [2003]; *Ely v Pierce,*302 AD2d 489 [2003]; *Frank v City of New York,*163 AD2d 254, 255-256 [1990]; *cf. Dunlap v City of New York,*186 AD2d 782, 783 [1992]).

*780In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Prudenti, EJ., Mastro, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
@article{1216411,
  author = {Hung-Yu Yang and Jonathan Gaudet and Rahul Verma and Santu Baidya and Faranak Bahrami and Xiaohan Yao and Cheng-Yi Huang and Lisa Debeer-Schmitt and Adam Aczel and Guangyong Xu and Hsin Lin and Arun Bansil and Bahadur Singh and Fazel Tafti},
  title = {Stripe Helical Magnetism and Two Regimes of Anomalous Hall Effect in NdAlGe},
  year = {2023},
  number = {7},
  month = {2023-03-27 00:03:00},
  publisher = {Physical Review Materials},
  doi = {https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.7.034202},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey M. Nugent, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 of BIOLASE, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

|                              |        |                                       |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Date: April 29, 2015

  |
|                         |   |
| By:                          |   | /s/ JEFFREY M. NUGENT                 |
|                         |   | Jeffrey M. Nugent                     |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

JAMES D. SCHNELLER, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

DELAWARE COUNTY COURT OF 

COMMON PLEAS, DELAWARE COUNTY 

OPEN RECORDS OFFICER, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 129 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2015, the Petition for Review and the 

Application for Leave to Amend are DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7640
DEE DEIDRE FARMER, Plaintiff - Appellant, WILLIAM CHERRY, Plaintiff, versus TERRY PENNINGTON, Lieutenant; ROBERT FOX, Unit Manager; J. ROBINSON, Correctional Counselor; JERRY GAUGHAN, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-440-5-H) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 29, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dee Deidre Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's motions for voluntary dismissal and to vacate judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and findthat, given this court's affirmance of the district court's underlying decision on the merits, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motions. See United States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6349

HOWARD EDWARD HALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR BENJAMIN ULEP, M.D., Defendant - Appellee, and VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, E.T.A.L.; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden; MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION, E.T.A.L., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-259-2) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard Edward Haley, Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Howard Edward Haley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Haley v. Ulep , No. CA-01-259-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
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 Quarterly Report of Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q, for the three
month period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bernard J. Tanenbaum III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company for the period certified.



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Bernard J. Tanenbaum III
|Bernard J. Tanenbaum III    
|Chief Executive Officer     
|                            
|May 15, 2008
---

EXHIBIT 12.2

SARBANES-OXLEY CFO CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey R. Mason, Principal Accounting Officer of Quartz
Mountain Resources Ltd., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Quartz
Mountain Resources Ltd.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

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

4. The Companys other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change
in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over
financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
  that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
  Companys internal control over financial reporting.

|Date:  | 15 December 2005            
|------ | ----------------------------
|       |                             
|       | /s/ Jeffrey R. Mason        
|       |                             
|By:    | Jeffrey R. Mason            
|Title: | Principal Accounting Officer

---