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

V.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

U MDNJ,

Defendant.

Whereas pro se PlaintiffJackie Barnes (“Plaintiff’) filed an application to proceed informa

pauperis on June 16. 2011; and

Whereas Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 8 sets forth the following general rules for pleading:

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must

contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim

needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief, and

(3) a demand for the relief sought. which ma include relief in the

alternative or different types of relief;

Fed, R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)’-(3); and

Whereas it appears that Plaintiff is requesting equitable and other relief under 42 U.S.C.

2000e-5(g) and alleges that she endured. “workplace harassment, wrongEd discharge, retaliation,
Wee Health Care Seuv.. No. 09-4034, 2010 U.S. Dist. 1.EXIS 26020, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 19. 2010);

and

Whereas generally, legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must

be supported by factual allegations.” Id. (quoting Ashcro/1 v. Iqbal. 129 S. Ct. 1937. 1950 (2009)):

and

Whereas Plaintiffreceived notice from the EEOC on March 8, 2011 that her Complaint was

denied: and that if she wished to commence her cause of action, she must do so within 90 days of

receipt ofsaid notice. Notwithstanding the notice. Plaintifffiled her Complaint late (June 1 6. 2011).

See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l); and

Whereas amending a complaint would be futile in this instance because the 90-day period

for filing the court action had expired and there is no equitable basis alleged to justify an extension.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A)-(B); Burgh v. Borough council ofthe Borough ofMonirose, 251 F.3d

465, 470 (3d Cir. 2001) (“We have strictly construed the 90-day period and held that, in the absence

of some equitable basis for tolling, a civil suit filed even one day late is time-barred and max’ be

dismissed.” citing f’igueroa i Buccaneer Hole/Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 176 (3d. Cir. 1999)). Hart v. J. T

BL1kL1 LIILm (o 98F2d829 82(dCir 1979)
P. 8(a)(2) for failure to meet the general rules of pleading.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this matter.

iv1

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

July 18, 2011

3
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 A0 72 9

. DAVI D W AYNE GALLEMORE I I I v

. W ANDA W I LLI S W HI TE.

Th e t ri al co u rt i s s u ed a n o r d e r fi nd i n g Dav i d W ay n e G al l em o re, III, in

co n tem p t fo r fai l i n g t o m ak e ch i l d s u p p o r t p a y m en t s u n d er a fi n al ju dg m en t an d

d ecree o f d iv o rce. In Cas e No

. A1 6 D0 4 6 4

, Gal lem o re fi l ed an a p p l i c a t i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew i n t h i s Co u rt

, an d t h i s Co u rt t ran sferred t h e ap p l i cat i o n t o t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt

, wh i ch g ran t ed t h e ap p li cat i o n

. Gal l em o re h as al s o fi led t h e i n s t an t

d i rect ap p eal i n t h i s Co u rt

.

In t ran sferri n g G al lem ore’ s ap p l icat i o n t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

, we ex p l ai n ed

t h at “ an ap p eal fro m t h e ju dg m en t i n a co nt em p t act i o n s eek i n g t o en fo rce an y p o rt i o n

o f th e d iv o rce d ecree o t h er t h an ch i l d cu st o d y i s an ci l l ary t o d i v orce an d al i m o n y an d

fal l s w i t hi n [t h e Su p rem e ] C o u r t ’ s ju ri s d i ct i on ov er d i v o rce an d al i m o n y cas es .”

( P u n c t u a t i o n o m i t t ed .) R o g er s v. McGa h ee

, 2 7 8 Ga. 2 8 7

, 2 8 8 (1 ) (6 0 2 SE2 d 5 8 2 )

(2 0 0 4). In t h i s d irect ap p eal

, Gal l em o re i s s eek i n g rev i ew o f t h e sam e t ri al co u rt

o r d e r a s i n h i s ap p l i cat i on

. Acco rd i n g l y

, t h i s ap p eal al s o fal l s wi t h i n t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt ’ s ju ri s di ct i o n

, an d t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y TRANSFERRED t o th e Su p rem e Co u rt

fo r d i s po s i t i o n

. December 08, 2016C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 12/08/2016
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 Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Steven Sjogren, President and 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, as amended; 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 14, 2007



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ C. Steven Sjogren                
|C. Steven Sjogren                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harry Wilson, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 150]

Contrary to the defendant’s contention in his supplemental pro se brief, the testimony presented at the pretrial hearing established that his identification by witness Anthony Watts was merely confirmatory, and that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress Watts’s identification testimony was thus properly denied *(see People v Garner,*27 AD3d 764 [2006]; *People v Jenkins,*230 AD2d 806, 807 [1996]; *cf. People v Rodriguez,*79 NY2d 445 [1992]).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally *674insufficient to establish his intent to inflict serious physical injury upon the victim is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Finger,*95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim and caused the victim’s death *(see*Penal Law § 10.00 [10]; § 125.20 [1]; *People v Bisono,*37 AD3d 844 [2007]; *People v Love,*37 AD3d 618, 619 [2007]; *People v Gill,*20 AD3d 434, 434-435 [2005]). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; *People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant contends that the People’s summation remarks constituted reversible error. However, the comments alleged to be inflammatory and prejudicial were either fair comment on the evidence *(see People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105 [1976]), responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation *(see People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396 [1981]), or harmless error *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; *People v Hill,*286 AD2d 777, 778 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.
HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES ANNUAL AVERAGES

34. Unemployed jobseekers by sex, reason for unemployment, and active jobsearch methods used

Sex and reason

2009

Thousands of

persons Methods used as a percent of total jobseekers

Average

number

of

methods

used

Total

unemployed

Total

jobseekers

Employer

directly

Sent out

resumes

or filled

out

applications

Placed

or

answered

ads

Friends

or

relatives

Public

employment

agency

Private

employment

agency

Other

 Total, 16 years and over ......................................................... 14,265 12,635 55.2 54.0 18.2 28.7 22.6 8.9 16.1 2.04

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 1 ........ 9,160 7,530 57.3 53.4 20.3 32.3 26.6 10.6 17.1 2.19

Job leavers ............................................................................... 882 882 55.6 56.3 17.8 23.9 18.5 7.7 16.0 1.96

Reentrants ................................................................................ 3,187 3,187 51.3 54.0 15.0 23.4 17.3 6.5 15.2 1.83

New entrants ............................................................................ 1,035 1,035 51.8 56.8 13.0 22.7 12.7 4.2 11.2 1.73

 Men, 16 years and over .......................................................... 8,453 7,304 56.6 51.8 18.0 30.4 23.2 9.1 16.2 2.06

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 1 ........ 5,967 4,817 58.5 51.1 19.6 32.9 26.4 10.5 17.3 2.17

Job leavers ............................................................................... 438 438 55.2 54.5 19.2 26.5 19.0 8.4 15.5 1.99

Reentrants ................................................................................ 1,504 1,504 52.1 51.7 14.2 26.1 17.7 6.8 15.3 1.84

New entrants ............................................................................ 545 545 53.4 56.5 12.6 22.9 13.1 4.1 10.3 1.73

 Women, 16 years and over .................................................... 5,811 5,331 53.3 57.1 18.4 26.3 21.7 8.5 15.9 2.02

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 1 ........ 3,193 2,713 55.1 57.6 21.4 31.2 27.1 10.9 16.9 2.21

Job leavers ............................................................................... 444 444 55.9 58.2 16.5 21.4 18.1 7.0 16.5 1.94

Reentrants ................................................................................ 1,683 1,683 50.6 56.1 15.6 20.9 16.9 6.3 15.2 1.82

New entrants ............................................................................ 491 491 50.1 57.0 13.4 22.5 12.3 4.3 12.2 1.72

1 Data on the number of jobseekers and the jobsearch methods used exclude

persons on temporary layoff.

 NOTE: The jobseekers total is less than the total unemployed because it does

not include persons on temporary layoff. The percent using each method will

always total more than 100 because many jobseekers use more than one method.

 Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January

data.

241
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We haveissued our reports dated March 12, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Orchid Cellmark Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent tothe incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Orchid Cellmark Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-60582, effective May 18, 2001, File No. 333-85550, effective April 16, 2002, FileNo. 333-98825, effective September 9, 2002, File No. 333-105732, effective June 5, 2003, and File No. 333-113892, effective May 27, 2004) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-53118, effective January 3, 2001, FileNo. 333-76744, effective January 15, 2002, File No. 333-126227, effective June 29, 2005, and File No. 333-146002, effective September 12, 2007). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

New York, New York 

March 12, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

Time and Date:  August 6, 2009, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight 
Time.

Place:  This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested 
person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at (505) 827-4565 to receive the 
toll free number and pass code needed to participate in these meetings 
by telephone.

Status:  Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered:  The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Issued on: July 9, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-16902 Filed 7-13-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Anson Chan, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of OmniVision Technologies, Inc.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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



Date:
June 30, 2010

By:

/s/ ANSON CHANAnson ChanChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00639-CV

C. Y., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 14-1203, HONORABLE MELISSA MCCLENAHAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

C.Y. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her minor

child, C.K. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment 1

in accordance with the jury’s findings by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for

terminating C.Y.’s parental rights existed and that termination was in the child’s best interest. See

id. §§ 161.001(1)(d), (E), (O), (2).2

On appeal, C.Y.’s court-appointed attorneyhas filed a motion to withdraw and a brief

concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective &Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied)(applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental

We refer to the mother and her child by their initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code 1

§ 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.

Although the trial court’s order cites section 161.001(1)(N), the language of the order 2

tracks that of section 161.001(1)(O). See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(N), (O).
rights). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S.

at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646–47. Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that she

provided C.Y. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel and informed her

of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. The Department of Family and

Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, indicating it will not file a brief unless

it deems a brief necessary after review of any pro se brief or unless requested to do so by this Court.

To date, C.Y. has not filed a pro se brief.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on C.Y.’s behalf,

and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating C.Y.’s parental rights

and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel.

_____________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Affirmed

Filed: January 27, 2016

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

The Estate of Marie Beneziano, by and 

through her Executrices, Diane Quade and 

Susan Provence, 

Plaintiffs 

V. 

Sunrise of Lincroft; Prime Care One, LLC; 

PCI, LLC; Prime Care Corp., Sunrise Senior 

Living, Inc.; Sunrise Senior Living 

Management, Inc.; ABC Companies (1-10); 

DEF Partnerships (1-10); John Doe 

Physicians (1-10); Jane Doe Nurses (1-20); 

Jane Moe Technicians (1-10); and CNA's and 

Paramedical Employees (1-20), 

Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

11-4087(MLC) 

Document Electronically Filed 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties and/or 

their respective counsel(s) that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, without 

prejudice against the following defendant(s) Sunrise of Lincroft, Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., 

Prime Care One, LLC, PCI, LLC and Prime Care Corp., pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1) 

AGREED TO: 

Stark& Stark, P.C. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Kevin C. Cottone, Esquire 

White and Williams LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

8271689v.1 

Case 3:11-cv-04087-MLC-LHG Document 6 Filed 11/11/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 72
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of USA Video Interactive Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anton J. Drescher, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.





By:

/s/Anton J. Drescher



Anton J. Drescher,

Chief Financial Officer

March 26th, 2007
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of the Registrant



The following table lists, as of December 31, 2002, our subsidiaries, all of which are wholly-owned, and indicates the
jurisdiction of organization of each subsidiary.



|Subsidiary Name                     |  | Where Incorporated
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------
|Sonic Innovations Pty Ltd.          |  | Australia         
|Hearing Aid Specialists Pty Limited |  | Australia         
|Sonic Innovations Canada Ltd.       |  | Canada            
|Sonic Innovations A/S               |  | Denmark           
|Omni ApS                            |  | Denmark           
|Omni Otoplast ApS                   |  | Denmark           
|Sonic Innovations GmbH              |  | Austria           
|Sonic Innovations AG                |  | Switzerland       
|Audifon U.K. Ltd.                   |  | England           
|Star Medical Europe B.V.            |  | Netherlands       
|Hoorcomfort Nederland B.V.          |  | Netherlands       
|Hoortoestelcentrum Sneek B.V.       |  | Netherlands
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 Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, July 22, 2009, 8 a.m.to July 23, 2009, 5 p.m., Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Center, Bethesda, MD which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 11, 2009, 74FR27806.                

This notice is amended to change the title from “NCI-ARRA Competitive Revisions-Pre Clinical, Drug Discovery & Imaging” to “NCI-ARRA Competitive Revisions & Grand Opportunity-Pre Clinical, Drug Discovery & Imaging”. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: July 9, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-16894 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P