alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50395

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALONDRA TERCERO HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-142-2

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Alondra Tercero Hernandez on

appeal has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Tercero

Hernandez has filed a response. Our independent review of

counsel’s brief, the record, and Hernandez’s response discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
#### Eleonore Kaymakcian et al., Appellants, v Board of Managers of the Charles House Condominium et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[854 NYS2d 52]

Dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim as time-barred was improper where, pursuant to the condominiums’ bylaws, respondents had a continuing duty to repair the building’s limited common elements, including the terrace of the apartment directly above plaintiffs, which was the source of the subject recurring leaks. Respondents’ failure to do so, despite being repeatedly notified by plaintiffs, constituted a continuing wrong that “is not referable exclusively to the day the original wrong was committed” *(see 1050 Tenants Corp. v Lapidus,*289 AD2d 145, 146 [2001]). However, inasmuch as plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, the claim is limited to any alleged *408damages that occurred within three years of the commencement of the instant action *(see Kaufman v Cohen,*307 AD2d 113, 118 [2003]; CPLR 214 [4]).

We have considered respondents’ remaining arguments, including that the complaint fails to allege specific facts to assert a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

MANDATE

TO THE 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, on the 8th day of May, 2015, the 

cause on appeal to revise or reverse the judgment between

MOVIE POSTER HOUSE, INC., Appellant

No. 05-14-01260-CV V.

HERITAGE AUCTIONS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-11040.

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, 

Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill 

participating.

was determined; and this Court made its order in these words:

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellee HERITAGE AUCTIONS, INC. recover {his/her/its/their} 

costs of this appeal from appellant MOVIE POSTER HOUSE, INC..

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of the Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth District of Texas, in this behalf, and have it duly obeyed and executed.

WITNESS the HON. CAROLYN WRIGHT, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, with 

the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Dallas, this 20th day of July, 2015.

LISA MATZ, Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 832 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 832

           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2020

 Ms. Granger (for herself, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Calvert, Mr. 
  Meadows, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Brooks of 
 Alabama, Mr. Flores, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Olson, Mrs. 
Walorski, Mr. Carter of Texas, Ms. Cheney, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. 
  Gaetz, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. 
   Palmer, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Brady, and Mr. Griffith) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ethics

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas, on December 20, 2019, Speaker Pelosi extended an invitation for 
        President Trump to address a joint session of Congress on February 4, 
        2020;
Whereas, on February 4, 2020, President Trump delivered his State of the Union 
        address, in which he honored the sacrifice of the following American 
        heroes and their families:

    General Charles McGee, one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen, who 
served in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War;

    Kayla Mueller, a humanitarian aid worker who was caring for suffering 
civilians in Syria when she was kidnapped, tortured and enslaved by ISIS 
for over 500 days before being murdered by ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-
Baghdadi;

    Army Staff Sergeant Christopher Hake, who was killed while serving his 
second tour of duty in Iraq by a roadside bomb supplied by Iranian 
terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani; and

    Sergeant First Class Townsend Williams, who is currently serving his 
fourth deployment in the Middle East and his wife Amy, who works full time 
for the Army and devotes hundreds of hours helping military families;

Whereas immediately following the address, while still presiding over the joint 
        session, Speaker Pelosi ripped up an official copy of the President's 
        remarks, which contained the names and stories of these patriots who 
        sacrificed so much for our country; and
Whereas the conduct of Speaker Pelosi was a breach of decorum and degraded the 
        proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the 
behavior of Speaker Pelosi during the joint session of Congress held on 
February 4, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1








SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER








In connection with this Annual Report of Summit Financial Group, Inc. ("Summit “) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, H. Charles Maddy, III, President and Chief Executive Officer of Summit, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934; and





(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Summit.










/s/ H. Charles Maddy, III


H. Charles Maddy, III,


President and Chief Executive Officer








Date:  February 28, 2011











The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, July 14, 2009, 1 p.m. to July 14, 2009, 4:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 22, 2009, 74 FR 29499.                

The meeting date has been changed to July 23, 2009, 1 p.m. to July 23, 2009, 4:30 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: June 26, 2009.

Anna Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-15672 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7787** 

DENNIS EDWARD PHILLIPS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MARJUSRI BASU, Nurse Supervisor; JEFF WALKER, Nurse; DR. SELENE PAREKH; DR. VINCENT C. IGOEKWE , Defendants

– Appellees,

and
BRYAN JONES, Lawyer; SHERIFF JOHN MCDIVETT; A. B. SAUNDERS, Nurse , Defendants

.

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

. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:10

- ct

- 03069

- D )

Submitted : March 2 6 , 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dennis Edward Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kari Russwurm Johnson, CRANFILL, SUMNER2 & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Dennis Edward Phillips appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint.
We have reviewed the record and , as to Defendants Basu,
Saunders, Parekh, Igboekwe, McDevitt, and Jones , we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as to these parties for the reasons stated by the district court

. Phillips v. Basu , No. 5:10

- ct

- 03069

- D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2011;
Nov. 3, 2011; & Sept. 13, 2012 ).
As to Defendant Walker, however, we vacate the district court’s order dismissing Phillips’ claim against him , because the court failed to advise Phillips of its conversion of Walker’s motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); Davis v. Zahradnick , 600 F.2d 458, 460
(4th Cir. 1979) (stating requirements for converting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment motion). The court also failed to sufficiently apprise Phillips of his rights under

Ros eboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975)

. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment in favor of Walker and remand for further proceedings. * We deny Phillips’ motions to voluntarily dismiss Jones from the appeal,

* By this disposition, we indicate no view as to the outcome of the proceedings on remand.4 to file an attachment to his informal brief, and for an
emergency stay

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART , VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption"Experts" and the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement ofMagic Lantern Group, Inc. Form S-3 (No. 333-101974) of our report relating to thefinancial statements of Magic Lantern Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and2002, and for the two years in the period ended December 31, 2003 which appearsin the Annual Report to Shareholder's for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 

                                                                    MAHONEY COHEN & COMPANY, CPA, P.C.

 

New York, NY April 14, 2003
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certificationof Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, C. RandalMills, certify that:

1.               I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc.

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

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

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s), and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)       Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)       Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)       Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)       All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

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

Date: May 14, 2007
|        |   | /s/ C. Randal Mills     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | C. Randal Mills, Ph.D.  |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Shamel Smith, Appellant, v City of New York, Defendant. District Attorney, New York County, Nonparty Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 44]

The quashing of the subpoena was a proper exercise of judicial discretion *(see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). Plaintiff failed to establish that the ADA’s deposition testimony as to her motives for charging plaintiff with possession of a forged instrument in an underlying criminal action, and instructing the grand jury in the way she did, is “material and necessary” to this malicious prosecution action against the City (CPLR 3101 [a]; *see generally Blittner v Berg & Dorf,*138 AD2d 439 [1988]). Such an action based on the allegedly malicious or improper acts of an ADA cannot stand where, as here, the actions complained of are associated with “the prosecutorial phase of the criminal process,” and are thus subject to absolute immunity *(Johnson v Town of Colonie, 102*AD2d 925, 926 [1984]; *see generally Drakeford v City of New York,*6 AD3d 302 [2004], *appeal dismissed 2*NY3d 779 [2004], *cert denied*543 US 909 [2004], *appeal dismissed and lv denied*3 NY3d 731 [2004]).

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address whether *401the motion was properly granted based on the attorney work-product privilege *(see*CPLR 3101 [c]). However, were we to address the issue, we would find that such privilege applies to protect the ADA from disclosing her “mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories” (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]) in the underlying criminal action. Concur-Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
@article{1216551,
  author = {Juan Fung and Yating Zhang and Dustin Cook and Siamak Sattar and Katherine Johnson},
  title = {Multidisciplinary Research to Advance the Development of Functional Recovery for Community Resilience},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-27 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Disaster Prevention and Resilience},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956135},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.15},
  language = {en},
}
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 Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Nathaniel J. Lipman, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) the information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 15, 2006.

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/  Nathaniel J. Lipman             
|Nathaniel J. Lipman                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.1
 TASK ORDER #02 AGREEMENT
OG2 Launch Vehicle Changes
     ARTICLE 1  DEFINITIONS
    ARTICLE 2  SCOPE OF WORK
  a)
    
    Perform Launch Support Services for Launches 1 through 5 (SOW Section 3).b)
    
    Revise OG2 Procurement Agreement to remove Launch Vehicle type references (i.e. Strela,
Minotaur and PSLV) and add Interface Requirements Document, revision 7 (IRD) reference as
the basis for Satellite design compliance.c)
    
    Revise system level analysis documentation to baseline Falcon 1E/9 as the requisite Launch
Vehicle(s).d)
    
    Launch Vehicle design review support and participation as needed (SOW Section 3.5).e)
    
    Launch Vehicle interface definition and ICD development (SOW Section 6.19.4).f)
    
    Launch site operations (SOW Section 3, 3.11, and 3.14).g)
    
    Contractor Participation in Launch Services Meetings, Reviews, and Working Groups (SOW
Section 3.5).




---



##### 



h)
    
    Launch Services Quality Assurance Plan (SOW Section 3.6).i)
    
    Support In-orbit tests and submit In-orbit Acceptance Test Reports for Missions 4 and 5 (SOW
Section 7.3.10, 9.19, and 9.20).
  a)
    
    Mechanical and electrical Ground Support Equipment for Launch operations shall be provided by
SNC. ORBCOMM shall plan to ship this equipment back to SNC after each Launch (SOW Section
3.10).b)
    
    SNC shall provide Satellite and ground support shipping containers (SOW Section 3.10).c)
    
    Satellite separation devices (sep nuts, bolts, washers...).d)
    
    Provide mechanical tooling for strongback provider to align separation interfaces (SOW
Section 3.13).e)
    
    All in-orbit test support for the first three missions (SOW Section 7.3.10, 9.19, and 9.20).f)
    
    Flight Satellite storage (OG2 Procurement Agreement Section 2.4).g)
    
    All post-IOT support (OG2 Procurement Agreement Section 7.4).h)
    
    All Successful operations support for the first three missions (SOW Section 2.11).i)
    
    Launch Vehicle Adapter Fit-Check support (SOW 3.13)j)
    
    Strongback design, test and production (SOW 3.13 and 8.4)k)
    
    Software Deliverables for all satellites (SOW Section 4,1, 4.1.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4).
  ARTICLE 3  TASK ORDER CONTRACT TYPE
  ARTICLE 4  PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
  ARTICLE 5  CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT TERMS
    2




---



##### 



ARTICLE 6  OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 vis-a-vis
  SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATIONBy:Name:
    Clint McElfishTitle:
    Corporate Contracts ManagerORBCOMM INCBy:Name:
    Christian Le BrunTitle:
    Executive Vice President, General Counsel  3