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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7026

ANTHONY JEROME WALKER, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

JANET COLEMAN, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:09-ct-03054-BO) 

Submitted: July 21, 2009 Decided: August 24, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Anthony Jerome Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Anthony Jerome Walker appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Walker v. Coleman, No. 

5:09-ct-03054-BO (E.D.N.C. May 19, 2009). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3423 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3423

 To provide for the issuance of a ``Gold Star Families Forever Stamp'' 
to honor the sacrifices of families who have lost a loved one who was a 
                 member of the Armed Forces in combat.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2016

 Mr. Blumenthal (for himself and Mrs. Ernst) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the issuance of a ``Gold Star Families Forever Stamp'' 
to honor the sacrifices of families who have lost a loved one who was a 
                 member of the Armed Forces in combat.

    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 ``Gold Star Families Forever Stamp 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) Gold Star mothers and fathers and families are true 
        national heroes, who deserve our deepest gratitude and respect; 
        and
            (2) the extraordinary contribution of Gold Star mothers and 
        fathers and families is beyond measure, not merely for their 
        loss, but the comfort they selflessly provide others and their 
        model of service and sacrifice.

SEC. 3. GOLD STAR FAMILIES FOREVER STAMP.

    (a) In General.--In order to continue to honor the sacrifices of 
families who have lost a loved one who was a member of the Armed Forces 
in combat, the Postmaster General shall provide for the issuance of a 
forever stamp suitable for that purpose.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term ``forever 
stamp'' means a definitive stamp which meets the postage required for 
first-class mail up to one ounce in weight, and which retains full 
validity for that purpose even if the rate of that postage is later 
increased.
    (c) Effective Date.--The stamp described in subsection (a) shall be 
issued beginning as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
this Act and shall not thereafter be discontinued.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Cecere’s Holiday, Inc., Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

[855 NYS2d 317]

Memorandum: Respondent’s determination that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) by selling alcoholic beverages to seven minors or permitting alcoholic *1163beverages to be delivered to them is supported by substantial evidence *(see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). With respect to four of the violations, petitioner failed to establish the affirmative defense that its employees reasonably relied upon photographic identification cards issued by a governmental entity *(see*Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 [4]). We agree with petitioner, however, that the penalty “ ‘is so disproportionate to the offense . . . as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]; *see Matter of JAJK, Inc. v Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control,*272 AD2d 963 [2000]; *Matter of Dimkos v New York State Liq. Auth.,*261 AD2d 927 [1999]). Based on the violations, respondent revoked petitioner’s liquor license, proscribed relicensing of the premises for a period of 24 months, and imposed a $20,000 fine and a $1,000 bond claim. Petitioner previously had been fined $10,000 and its liquor license had been suspended for 10 days for unlawful sales to minors. In light of that history and the nature of the instant violations, we agree with respondent that a severe penalty is appropriate. Nevertheless, we conclude in the exercise of our discretion that the maximum penalty warranted under the circumstances of this case is a $15,000 fine, a $1,000 bond claim, and a 60-day suspension of petitioner’s liquor license *(see e.g. Dimkos,*261 AD2d 927 [1999]; *Matter of Northwood Foods Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*208 AD2d 633 [1994]; *Matter of We Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*175 AD2d 165 [1991]). Thus, we modify the determination and grant the amended petition in part by reducing the penalty accordingly. Present—Smith, J.P., Lunn, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.2

# Consent of
Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement Nos. No. 2-90847, No. 33-33620, No. 333-56904, No.
333-66698, and No. 333-106852 on Form S-8 of Westmoreland Coal Company and subsidiaries of
our report dated March 10, 2006 related to the financial statements of Westmoreland 
LG&E Partners as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 2005, included in this Annual Report on Amendment No.1 to Form
10-K/A of Westmoreland Coal Company for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche
LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
November 2, 2006
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 13, 2019.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-2512

Lower Tribunal Nos. 11-27843; 11-30828

________________

Roberto Duggans,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Eric William Hendon, Judge.

Roberto Duggans, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, LINDSEY and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, J.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court's denial of his “Motion to Correct

an Illegal Sentence,” filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. 

On November 9, 2018, in accordance with the mailbox rule, appellant filed his

relevant notice of appeal.1 The notice of appeal incorrectly states the lower court

rendered the order appealed on October 10, 2018. Applying Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 2 we determine the lower court rendered the order

under appeal on September 28, 2018, as the trial court’s signed, written order

denying the motion to correct illegal sentence was filed with the lower court clerk

on that date. We reach this conclusion based on the lower court clerk’s filing

stamp, dated September 28, 2018. 

Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition of

the order, this court is without appellate jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b);

see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(k). Thus, we dismiss this appeal for lack of

1 The mailbox rule provides a motion, petition, or notice of appeal is deemed

“filed” when an inmate places it in the hands of prison officials. Haag v. State, 591

So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992). As articulated in Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324,

326 (Fla. 2000), we presume timeliness, of the filing of a legal document submitted

by an inmate, according to the date contained in the certificate of service, if any,

showing that the pleading was placed in the hands of prison or jail officials for

mailing on that date, provided said date is on or before the filing deadline. 

2 Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h) – Rendition (of an Order). An order is rendered when

a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal. See In re

Amendments to the Fla. R. App P., 256 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2018) (adopting

amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, relettering subdivision (i)

of rule 9.020 to (h)); see also Guy v. Plaza Home Mortg., Inc., 260 So. 3d 280 (Fla.

4th DCA 2018).

2
jurisdiction, without prejudice for the filing of a petition for belated appeal

pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c). See, e.g., Watkins v.

State, 217 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). 

Dismissed. 

3
#### John R. Consedine, Respondent, v Portville Central School District et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[852 NYS2d 886]

Present-Hurlbutt, J.E, Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
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




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Xedar Corporation (the “ *Company* ”)
      hereby
      certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




(i) the
      accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
      December 31, 2006 (the “ *Report* ”)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),
      as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and




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





By:
            /s/
                Hugh H. Williamson, IIIMarch
                14, 2007
            
            Hugh
                H. Williamson, IIIPresident
                and Chief Executive OfficerXedar
                Corporation
##### 



EXHIBIT
32(b)
 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code
  (i)
    
    the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K dated February 13, 2007
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the said Form 10-K fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 /s/ REUBEN GAMORANReuben GamoranSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
* 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

June 18, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30398

ANTHONY ROSENBAUM,

Plaintiff,

versus

CAL DIVE INTERNATIONAL INC,

Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

versus

BROCO INC,

Third Party Defendant - Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CV-3274

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

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cal Dive International and Broco both appeal in this products

liability case involving the explosion of an underwater cutting

torch manufactured by Broco that injured Anthony Rosenbaum, a

commercial diver employed by Cal Dive. Cal Dive argues on appeal

that the district court erred in dismissing several of its claims,

drafting the jury charge, and excluding evidence of post-accident
No. 06-30398

-2-

changes to the torch. It also argues that the jury verdict is

against the weight of the evidence. Broco argues on appeal that the

court erred in allowing Cal Dive’s claim to proceed to the jury. 

After considering the oral and written arguments of the

parties, the evidence and the record in this case, we conclude that

the district court committed no reversible error of law in its

rulings or its instructions to the jury, and that there was a

legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's findings and

verdict. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
**Updated as of January 1, 2015**

** **

**EXHIBIT A**

**to the**

**Plan of Distribution of American Funds CollegeTarget Date Series**

**relating to its Class 529-A shares**

** **

** **

 

 

 

****

**Updated as of January 1, 2015**

** **

** **

**EXHIBIT A**

**to the**

**Plan of Distribution of American Funds CollegeTarget Date Series**

**relating to its Class 529-B shares**

** **

** **

** **

** **

**Updated as of January 1, 2015**

 

**EXHIBIT A**

**to the**

**Plan of Distribution of American Funds CollegeTarget Date Series**

**relating to its Class 529-C shares**

** **

** **

 

**Updated as of January 1, 2015**

 

**EXHIBIT A**

**to the**

**Plan of Distribution of American Funds CollegeTarget Date Series**

**relating to its Class 529-E shares**

** **

** **

 

 

**Updated as of January 1, 2015**

 

**EXHIBIT A**

**to the**

**Plan of Distribution of American Funds CollegeTarget Date Series**

**relating to its Class 529-F-1 shares**

** **

** **
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID HOWELL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CHUCK ALLEN; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 16495

D.C. No.

3:17

- cv

- 00449

- MMD

- WGC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 7 , 2020 * *

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

David Howell, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment for Appellees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and, on de novo review, Sando val v. C ounty o f Sonoma , 912 F.3d 509, 515 (9th Cir.

2018), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable f or decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

1. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Howell’s

deliberate indifference claims. As to Sheriff Allen, the record lacks evidence of his

knowledge of the roof construction work, defeating this claim. See Gordon v.

C ounty of Orange , 8 88 F.3d 1118 , 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (to establish deliberate

indifference claim, must demonstrate “the defendant made an intentional decision”

on confinement conditions). As to Officers Smith and Hagan, summary judgment

was appropriate as Howell failed to establish their behavior rose to the level of

deliberate indifference that caused him to fall ill. See id. (causation must be

established for deliberate indifference claim to succeed).

2. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Ho well’s

equal protection clause claim against Smith and Hagan, as t he record does not

establish Smith and Hagan intentionally treated Howell differently than similarly

situated individuals. See Furnace v. Sullivan , 705 F.3d 1021, 1030

– 31 (9th Cir.

2013) (affirming summary judgment where no evidence that officers treated the

appellant differently than others in relevant class); Towery v. Brewer , 672 F.3d 650,

660 (9th Cir. 2012) ( for class of one theory, individual must establish less favorable

treatment than others generally).

AFFIRMED.
H. Res. 327

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 22, 2003.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2800) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of

order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order

against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause

2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: sections

568(a)(3), 572, and 575. Where points of order are waived

against part of a section, points of order against a provision
2

•HRES 327 EH

in another part of such section may be made only against

such provision and not against the entire section. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition

on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment

has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule

XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read.

At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment

the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
## **Exhibit 31.2**

## ** **

**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer**

(Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a))

 

I, Gary Williams, certify that: 

 

1.               I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of FocusEnhancements, Inc.; 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 15, 2006

 

 
|   | /s/    | Gary Williams                   |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Gary Williams                   |
|   |   | Executive VP of Finance and CFO |

 

----
Base Salaries of Executive Officers of the Registrant



 Exhibit 10.6 
 Base Salaries of Executive Officers of the Registrant 
 As of March 1, 2009, the following are the base salaries (on an
annual basis) of the executive officers (as defined in Item 402 (a)(3) of Regulation S-K) of Old Point Financial Corporation: 
  

				
	 Robert F. Shuford
Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
Old Point Financial Corporation
	  	$	300,000
	  		
	  		
		
	 Louis G. Morris
Executive Vice President/OPNB
Old Point Financial Corporation
	  	$	250,000
	  		
	  		
		
	 Robert F. Shuford, Jr.
Senior Vice President/Operations
Old Point Financial Corporation
	  	$	167,500
	  		
	  		
		
	 Joseph R. Witt
Senior Vice President/Corporate Banking
Old Point Financial Corporation
	  	$	158,500
	  		
	  		
		
	 Melissa L. Burroughs
Senior Vice President/Lending & Business Development
Old Point Financial
Corporation
	  	$	152,500
	  		
	  		
		
	 Margaret P. Causby
Senior Vice President/Risk Management
Old Point Financial Corporation
	  	$	151,500
	  		
	  		
		
	 Laurie D. Grabow
Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President/Finance
Old Point Financial
Corporation
	  	$	150,000
	  		
	  		
		
	 Eugene M. Jordan, II
Executive Vice President/Trust
Old Point Financial Corporation
	  	$	150,000