alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7148
PAUL NAGY, Petitioner - Appellant, versusH. G. LAPPIN, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-911-5-F) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Nagy, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Talore Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be denied as moot and advisedAppellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE

#### George Herman Grant v. Raymond Thomas Gregory

February 15, 2002

Case No. 01-148CL

by Judge Joseph w. Milam, Jr.

In reliance upon *Grasty*v. *Tanner,*206 Va. 723, 146 S.E.2d 252 (1966); *Thorpe*v. *Commonwealth,*223 Va. 609, 292 S.E.2d 323 (1982); and *Swiney*v. *Overbey,*237 Va. 231, 377 S.E.2d 372 (1989), it is the opinion of this Court that expert opinion as to the minimum speed of defendant’s vehicle necessary to account for the measured skid distance is inadmissible in this case. Even if such opinion testimony were instructive and/or helpfiil to a jury, plaintiff concedes that it relies upon the published “curb weight” of defendant’s vehicle and, therefore, does not consider weight of vehicle contents, if any, gasoline levels, etc. In addition, it is the understanding of the Court that plaintiffs expert did not examine the brakes of the vehicle in question and his opinion assumes all four wheels slid an equal distance. Also, tite expert’s measurements of coefficients of friction for the surfaces involved were made some time after the accident at issue occurred. In sum, plaintiffs expert may not have considered potentially significant variables.

Defendant argues that the Court’s ruling will “blindfold” the jury. As discussed during argument, jurors are not asked to leave their common sense outside the courtroom. Defendant is permitted to introduce relevant physical evidence in this case. This may or may not be introduced through defendant’s designated “accident” expert. The Court’s ruling is limited to an opinion as to minimum speed based on post-accident measurements of skid distances, coefficients of friction, and consideration of the published “curb weight*’ of defendant’s vehicle. Defendant’s motion *in limine*is granted to the extent consistent with the foregoing.

*384As ruled from the bench, defendant’s motion to exclude evidence relating to plaintiffs alleged wage loss is denied. Although not disclosed in response to interrogatory answers, such evidence will be allowed to be introduced by plaintiff.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Gregory W. Freiberg, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of New Media Investment Group 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)) 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) 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

(c) 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(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 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: March 19, 2014 |  | /s/    GREGORY W.
FREIBERG                 
|                     |  | Gregory W. Freiberg Chief Financial Officer
franklin_10q-ex1002.htm








EXHIBIT 10.2


  


 


AMENDMENT 1


to


 COMMON STOCK REPURCHASE AGREEMENT







This Amendment 1 (“Amendment”) to the Common Stock Repurchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made between C-Motech Co., Ltd (“C-Motech”) and Franklin Wireless Corp. (“Franklin”) and is dated effective January 28, 2011.  C-Motech and Franklin entered into the Agreement on July 27, 2010. The parties desire to modify the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment 1.


 


The parties agree to the following:


 


1.   Section 1 c) of the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


c) US$1,626,935.30 (for the repurchase of 1,566,672 shares) to be paid by March 31, 2011.


 


This Amendment 1 is hereby signed by authorized representatives of C-Motech and Franklin.



 



	 	
FRANKLIN WIRELESS CORP.


	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:      /s/ OC Kim                                                
	 	Print Name:     OC Kim                                          
	 	Title:      President                                                





 


 



	 	

C-MOTECH CO. LTD.




	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:       /s/ T.S. Kim                                             
	 	Print Name:     T.S. Kim                                       
	 	Title:                CEO
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013, by and among GS MortgageSecurities Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer and Certificate Administrator, LNR Partners,LLC, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor andDeutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through GSMS Certificates Series 2013-GCJ14 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 10.07 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2427 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2427

     To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify a 
 maintenance exemption regarding the removal of sediment, debris, and 
                  vegetation from certain structures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 6, 2011

   Mr. Gary G. Miller of California (for himself, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. 
 Denham, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Baca, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. 
    Costa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify a 
 maintenance exemption regarding the removal of sediment, debris, and 
                  vegetation from certain structures.

    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 ``Flood Control Facility Maintenance 
Clarification Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

    Section 404(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (42 
U.S.C. 1344(f)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting ``channels, basins,'' 
        after ``such as''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the term 
        `maintenance' includes the removal of sediment, debris, and 
        vegetation from structures described in that paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         533,920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,912,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (210,543)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,345,995
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,862,429
<PP&E>                                         919,860
<DEPRECIATION>                               (194,427)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,644,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,677,521
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,172
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,812,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,644,194
<SALES>                                      3,182,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,182,673
<CGS>                                        1,756,529
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,839,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               182,821
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (598,882)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (598,882)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (598,882)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
#### Herdsman and others *v.*Lewis and others.

*(Circuit Court, E. D. New York.*

January 30, 1882.)

1. Equity — Issues of Fact.

Neither party to a suit in equity brought in a federal court has an absolute right to have a question of fact arising in the cause passed on by a jury.

On a Motion to Award Feigned Issues.

*H. P. Herdsman,*for complainants.

*Blatchford, Seward*and *Griswold & De Costa,*for defendants.

Benedict, D. J.

This is a motion in an equity cause for the trial before a jury upon feigned issues of certain questions of fact raised by the pleadings. It appears by the papers that no testimony whatever has yet been taken in the cause, and that the decision may turn upon the question of fact, whether certain instruments described in the bill, and against which the plaintiffs seek relief, were procured by fraud and duress. ’While it is not doubted that a court of the United States, sitting in equity, may in a proper case direct questions of fact arising in an equity cause to be passed on by a jury, neither party has an absolute right to such a trial. Whether a jury trial be in any case necessary or desirable depends upon the facts of the case. In this case I see no necessity at this time for such a proceeding. Feigned issues are awarded, it is said, “in order to relieve and ease the conscience of the court,” but here the necessity of such relief does not as yet appear. The surmise that the testimony, when taken before *854an examiner, will prove conflicting and uncertain, affords no foundation for present action by the court.

Another of the reasons assigned for granting feigned issues, viz., because “the court is so sensible of the deficiency of trial by written evidence,” (2 Daniell, Ch. Pr. 631,) also fails in this case, for it is quite apparent that on a jury trial the testimony would be for the most part in writing, owing to the circumstance that the transaction in. question occurred-in Texas.

For these reasons the motion to award feigned issues in the case at this time is denied.
[Cite as In re A.M., 2014-Ohio-5495.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WARREN COUNTY 

IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 A.M./M.M. : CASE NO. CA2014-07-097 

: D E C I S I O N

 12/15/2014 

: 

 

: 

APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Case No. 12-D000723 

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, 500 Justice Drive, 

Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee 

Alexander, Webb & Kinman, LLC, Tyler Webb, 423 Reading Road, Mason, Ohio 45040, for 

appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and upon a brief filed by 

appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, R.B., has filed a brief with this court pursuant 
Warren CA2014-07-097

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful 

review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists three potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant 

on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief 

and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

RINGLAND, P.J., HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 217 

Designating October 8, 2015, as ‘‘National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 8, 2015 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. COONS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. 

MURPHY, and Mr. HEINRICH) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating October 8, 2015, as ‘‘National Hydrogen and 

Fuel Cell Day’’. 

Whereas hydrogen, which has an atomic mass of 1.008, is the 

most abundant chemical substance in the universe; 

Whereas the United States is a world leader in the development and deployment of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies; 

Whereas hydrogen fuel cells played an instrumental role in 

the United States space program, helping the United 

States achieve the mission of landing a man on the moon; 

Whereas private industry, Federal and State governments, 

national laboratories, and universities continue to imVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:34 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR217.ATS SR217

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 217 ATS 

prove fuel cell and hydrogen technologies to address our 

most pressing energy, environmental, and economic 

issues; 

Whereas fuel cells utilizing hydrogen and hydrogen-rich fuels 

to generate electricity are clean, efficient, resilient technologies being sold for stationary and backup power, 

zero-emission light duty motor vehicles and buses, industrial vehicles, and portable power; 

Whereas stationary fuel cells are being placed in service for 

continuous and backup power to provide business and energy consumers with reliable power in the event of grid 

outages; 

Whereas stationary fuel cells can help reduce water use compared to traditional power generation technologies; 

Whereas fuel cell electric light duty motor vehicles and buses 

that utilize hydrogen can completely replicate the experience of internal combustion vehicles including comparable 

range and refueling times; 

Whereas hydrogen fuel cell industrial vehicles are being deployed at logistical hubs and warehouses across the country and are also being exported to facilities in Europe 

and Asia; 

Whereas hydrogen is a non-toxic gas that can be derived from 

a variety of domestically available traditional and renewable resources, including solar, wind, biogas and the 

abundant supply of natural gas in the United States; 

Whereas hydrogen and fuel cells can store energy to help enhance the grid and maximize opportunities to deploy renewable energy; 

Whereas the United States currently produces and uses more 

than 11,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per year; and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 217 ATS 

Whereas engineers and safety code and standard professionals have developed consensus-based protocols for safe 

delivery, handling, and use of hydrogen: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates October 8, 

2 2015, as ‘‘National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                       27,288
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             19,167
<PP&E>                                      829,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              848,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        69,933  
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     11,204
<OTHER-SE>                                  778,347                           
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                848,280
<SALES>                                         407 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                407
<CGS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             45,308
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                45,308
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (44,901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
        

</TABLE>
#### Juan R. COLON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent.

No. 2008-3057.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 11, 2007.

Juan R. Colon, pro se.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.