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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8002

JEROME N. DAIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN LAMANNA, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(9:05-cv-02797-DCN)

Submitted: April 19, 2007 Decided: April 24, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome N. Dais, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerome N. Dais, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. Dais

also appeals the district court’s order denial of his subsequent

motion for reconsideration and has filed a motion for summary

judgment on appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders for the

reasons stated by the district court, see Dais v. LaManna, No.

9:05-cv-02797-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 14 and Oct. 18, 2006). We deny

Dais’s motion for summary judgment. 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
Labor force participation rate of 16- to 24-year-olds, by sex, 
 July 2005-2008 (not seasonally adjusted)     

	      Percent		

	Total	Men	Women
2005	66.6	69.6	63.6
2006	66.7	69.7	63.6
2007	65.0	67.9	62.1
2008	65.1	68.1	62.1
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation

Space Systems, Inc. )

) ASBCA No. 63512

)

Under Contract No. 000000

- 00

- 0

- 0000 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Evan R. Sherwood, Esq.

Peter B. Hutt, II, Esq.

Covington & Burling LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Samuel W. Morris, Esq.

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Evan Georgopoulos, Esq.

Trial Attorney

Defense Contract Management Agency

Hanscom Air Force Base, MA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: November 22, 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63512

, Appeal of Northrop

Grumman Systems Corporation Space Systems, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the

Board’s Charter.

Dated: November 22, 2023 RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeal s

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### D.B. GRIFFIN WAREHOUSE, INC. *v.*Margaret SANDERS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Sanders, Deceased, Appellee; Travelers Insurance Company, Intervenor

CA 97-1573

965 S.W.2d 784

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered April 9, 1998

*Daggett, Van Dover, Donovan & Perry, PLLC,*by: *J. Shane Baker,*for appellant.

*Wilson & Valley,*by: E. Dion Wilson, for appellee.

*511Per Curiam.

On February 10, 1998, appellee Margaret Sanders filed a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by appellant D.B. Griffin Warehouse, Inc., on the basis that the filing of the record was not timely. The allegations made, and supported by three affidavits, are that appellant’s record was due for filing in the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office on December 31, 1997; that it was tendered but not filed on December 26, 1997, due to lack of a circuit court’s certificate, nonpayment of the filing fee, and failure to present the original record; that these defects were corrected after the filing deadline (apparently on January 2, 1998); and that the fifing of the record was stamped December 26, 1997. Documents sent out by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office show the record was filed on December 26, 1997. The record itself shows receipt and fifing as of December 26, 1997.

It has long been the practice of the Supreme Court Clerk’s office to accept records which are tendered on time and to allow seven days for any errors in form to be corrected. Those errors may include subsequent payment of the fifing fee and certification of the record by the circuit clerk. When the defects are corrected, the date of fifing is the date the record was tendered — in this case, December 26, 1997.

We are mindful that Ark. Code Ann. § 21-6-401 (Repl. 1996) contemplates payment of a fifing fee before the record is filed and that our caselaw makes the payment of the fee a condition of the fifing, which is jurisdictional. *See In Re Smith,*183 Ark. 1025, 39 S.W.2d 703 (1931). Here, of course, the fee was paid, and the record was marked “filed” as of the date it was tendered. Thus, the record was tendered within the jurisdictional time frame and was marked “filed” on that date after errors in form were corrected and the filing fee was paid.

It is clear to us that counsel for appellant relied on this practice by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office. In fact, counsel for appellee Sanders attaches a letter from appellant’s counsel as part of his Supplement to Motion to Dismiss, where appellant’s counsel states, in effect, that he understands that this is the practice of the clerk’s office.

*512Though the record in this case may not have been stamped filed as of December 26, 1997 until January 2, 1998, this was done in accordance with the longstanding practice of the clerk’s office.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Newbern, J., not participating.
<PAGE>

                             ZENITH NATIONAL INSURANCE CORP.
                                          AND
                                       SUBSIDIARIES
                                 (AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997)


Zenith National Insurance Corp.

    CalFarm Insurance Agency
         Cal-Ag Insurance Services, Inc.

    Perma Bilt, a Nevada Corporation

    Zenith Insurance Company
         CalFarm Insurance Company
         CalRehab Services, Inc.
         Zenith Star Insurance Company
         ZNAT Insurance Company
         Zenith Risk Management
         Zenith Insurance Company of Florida
         Zenith Insurance Management Services, Inc.
---------------

Each subsidiary is one hundred per cent owned by the subsidiary shown in the 
tier above it.
EXHIBIT 32.1
           Section 1350 Certification -- Principal Executive Officer

                 Citizens Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries

                In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Citizens
Financial  Corporation  (the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended June 30,
2004, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report") I,  Darrell R. Wells,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  S.S. 1350, as adopted pursuant to S.S. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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.


                                 By:       /s/ Darrel R. Wells
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Darrell R. Wells
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 11, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Citizens Financial Corporation and
will be retained by CFC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
or its staff upon request.


The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be  considered  filed as
part of the Form 10-Q.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at June 30, 1997 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Operations
for the Six Months Ended June 30, 1997 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,483
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,684
<PP&E>                                       1,098,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                 324,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 817,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              228
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     817,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   817,863
<SALES>                                        218,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               218,745
<CGS>                                          113,255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,140
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,140
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,140
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.19
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

                     INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of
March 31, 1998, and the related condensed consolidated statements of operations
and cash flows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 1998 and 1997. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical review
procedures to financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for
financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an
audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which
will be performed for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion
regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements referred
to above for them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Collaborative Clinical Research,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended, not presented herein, and in our report dated January 30, 1998, we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In
our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all
material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it
has been derived.

Cleveland, Ohio                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP
April 20, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18155]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the 
Receivership of 10341--Peoples State Bank, Hamtramck, Michigan

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (``FDIC'') as Receiver for Peoples State Bank, Hamtramck, 
Michigan (``the Receiver'') intends to terminate its receivership for 
said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Peoples State Bank 
on February 11, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has 
been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in 
accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend 
payment to proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the 
termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing 
and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and 
Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 
Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be 
considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 23, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18155 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the quarterly report of Franklin Covey Co. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), we, Robert A. Whitman, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stephen D. Young, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of our knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods
indicated.





This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.













/s/ Robert A. Whitman
            
            /s/ Stephen D. YoungRobert
      A. Whitman
            
            Stephen
      D. YoungChief
      Executive Officer
            
            Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:  July
      10, 2008
            
            Date:  July
      10, 2008
#### SPRAY PRODUCTS, INC. v. STROUSE, INC., and A. Frank Strouse.

Civ. A. No. 28835.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

July 13, 1962.

*212Mancill, Cooney, Semans & Hedges, by Edwin W. Semans, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Howson & Howson, by Charles H. Howson, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

WOOD, District Judge.

This is a suit for patent infringement in which plaintiff has charged defendants with the infringement of plaintiff’s patent relating to cans containing a starting fuel for diesel engines. Defendants, by counterclaim, have charged plaintiff with infringement of their patent. Plaintiff noticed the depositions of two witnesses who are employed by Pace, Inc. This company now packages plaintiff’s starting fluids. The witnesses appeared voluntarily on behalf of plaintiff, and on direct-examination testified as experts and gave opinion testimony against the validity of defendants’ patent. On cross-examination by the defendants’ attorney, these witnesses refused to answer all questions relating to the formulation of the spray starting fluid packaged for plaintiff and the method employed by Pace in loading the packages for plaintiff.

The witnesses asserted that their counsel had advised them not to answer questions relating to the business of Pace. On argument of this motion, plaintiff has taken the position that the questions propounded by defendants were not within the scope of the direct examination and, therefore, were not permissible cross-examination.

 In our opinion, these questions are certainly relevant to the subject matter of this action. As to the argument that the questions did not come within the scope of the direct examination, it is enough to note that Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A. provides that:

> “A party shall not be deemed to make a person his own witness for any purpose by taking his deposition.”

Professor Moore, commenting on this Rule, says:

> “Moreover, if the party taking the deposition examines the deponent only as to one issue in the case, it would seem that another party may examine the deponent on any other issues by direct examination without the necessity of serving a prior notice of the taking of deposition. In so doing, he does not make the deponent his witness.” Moore’s FEDERAL PRACTICE, Vol. 4, p. 1185.

We agree with Professor Moore that, the ordinary trial limitations on the scope of cross-examination are not grounds for *213a witness refusing to answer a question asked during the taking of his deposition for purposes of discovery.

ORDER

And now, to wit, this 13th day of July, 1962, It Is Hereby Ordered that the witnesses Ira A. Wolfson and Morris H. Unthank appear at a time and place designated by defendants’ attorney for the purpose of answering the questions listed in defendants’ amended motion..
Exhibit 31.1
                         CERTIFICATIONS

	I, Thomas H. Fraser, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Diacrin,
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 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
registrant 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 registrant, 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)	[Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition
instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986]
c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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
d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer 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 the registrant'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
registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.


Date:	July 30, 2003
                                           /s/ Thomas H. Fraser
                                          -----------------------
                                          President and
                                          Chief Executive 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

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20526

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAID ANTONIO NIETO, also known as Morro

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-482-3

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Said Antonio Nieto has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Nieto has not filed a response. Our independent review of

the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
No. 06-20526

2

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.