alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### Boynton P. Livingstone et al. v. Bernard A. Meany

August 2, 1984

Case No. (Law) 24680

By JUDGE THOMAS R. MONROE

Under advisement is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order, relieving Plaintiffs from the requirements of a Notice of Deposition until such time as a proper notice is filed and the deposition of defendant Meany has been rescheduled and completed.

I have carefully considered the memoranda submitted as well as the able arguments presented and am of the opinion that the motion should be overruled.

Rule 4:5(a) of the Virginia Rules provides in pertinent part, that:

> After commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination. Leave of court, granted with or without notice, must be obtained only if the plaintiff seeks to take a deposition before the expiration of the period within which a defendant may file a responsive pleading under Rule 2:7 or 3:5 ....

A fair reading and interpretation of this rule places the restriction only on the plaintiffs in this case. Had the framers of Rule 4:5(a) intended for the restrictions to apply to the defendants, sufficient language could have been added without difficulty.

*223The Motion for Protective Order filed by plaintiffs is overruled. Boynton P. Livingstone, Sr., plaintiff, shall appear for deposition at a time and place designated by defendant, prior to the taking of defendant’s deposition.

The Court does not deem the Motion for Protective Order to be frivolous or made without merit and denies expenses and attorney’s fees to counsel for defendant.
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 Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert S. Thomas, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert S. Thomas                 
|Robert S. Thomas                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 9, 2006                          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Charles &
Colvard, Ltd. and will be retained by Charles & Colvard, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERIC R. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 823 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of May, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Base Salary Table



 Exhibit 10.21 
 2011 BASE SALARY TABLE FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
 The 2011 annual base salaries of the
following Named Executive Officers of Ameren Corporation (Ameren), Union Electric Company (UE), Ameren Illinois Company (AIC) and Ameren Energy Generating Company (Genco) (which officers were determined to the extent applicable by reference to the
Ameren Proxy Statement and the UE, Central Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS) and Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO) Information Statements, each dated March 10, 2010, for the 2010 annual meetings of shareholders and by reference to the
definition of “Named Executive Officer” in Item 402(a)(3) of SEC Regulation S-K) are as follows: 
  

					
	 Name and Position
	  	2011 Base Salary	 
	 Thomas R. Voss

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer – Ameren
	  	$	900,000	  
		
	 Warner L. Baxter

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer – UE
	  	$	590,000	  
		
	 Martin J. Lyons, Jr.

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial

Officer – Ameren, UE, AIC and Genco
	  	$	485,000	  
		
	 Steven R. Sullivan

Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
Secretary – Ameren, UE, AIC and Genco (through March 1,
2011)
 Chairman and President – Genco (effective March 2, 2011)
	  	$	438,000	  
		
	 Charles D. Naslund

Chairman and President – Genco (through March 1, 2011)

Senior Vice President – UE (effective March 2, 2011)
	  	$	437,000	  
		
	 Adam C. Heflin

Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer – UE
	  	$	400,000	  
		
	 Scott A. Cisel

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer – AIC
	  	$	398,000	  
		
	 Daniel F. Cole

Senior Vice President – UE, AIC and Genco
	  	$	391,000	  
		
	 Jerre E. Birdsong

Vice President and Treasurer – Ameren, UE, AIC and Genco
	  	$	306,000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2057

HOMER ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;

CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(97-1448-BLA)

Submitted: February 16, 1999 Decided: March 4, 1999

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Homer Anderson, Petitioner Pro Se. Dorothy L. Page, Christian P.

Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.;

Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia,

for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Homer Anderson seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s

decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial

of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West

1986 & Supp. 1998). Our review of the record discloses that the

Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

Board. See Anderson v. DOWCP, BRB No. 97-1448-BLA, (B.R.B. June

19, 1998). 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
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2826

_____________________________ L.F., Mother o f A.P., Jr. and A.F.

- P., Minor Children
, Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT O F C HILDREN A ND F AMILIES , Appellee.

____________ _________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James P. Nilon , Judge

. October 4, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , K ELSEY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and autho rized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Ryan Thomas Truskoski of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando
, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville, for App ellee.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, Tallahassee, and Sandra Ferrin, Pro Bono Counsel, Naples, for Guardian ad Litem Program

.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, William G. Hargett, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The HoustonExploration Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure 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 otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport 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 endof the period 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’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: November 4, 2004    /s/ William G. Hargett  William G. Hargett Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
33
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

May 05, 2006

Mr. William D. Cramer

Roach LLP

5000 Legacy Drive, Suite 300

Plano, TX 75024

Mr. Richard M. Abernathy

Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Joplin, P.C.

1700 Redbud Blvd, Suite 300

McKinney, TX 75069

RE:Case Number:  05-0271

Court of Appeals Number:  05-03-01023-CV

Trial Court Number:  401-02399-01

Style:AMERICAN FLOOD RESEARCH, INC.

v.

HARRY JONES

Dear Counsel:

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals’ judgment and remands the case to that court and delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 05-0271Page 1**
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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 operation of the Company.












Date:  May 19, 2011
By:  /s/ Joseph M. CumminsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  May 19, 2011
By:  /s/ Bernard CohenVice President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

 

I, Richard P. Rainey, Chief Executive Officer of AVAX Technologies,Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to Section 1350, of chapter63 of title 18, United States Code, and Section 906 of the Sarbanes–OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, (1) the quarterly report onForm 10-QSB of the Company to which this Exhibit is attached (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Richard P. Rainey                          |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Richard P. Rainey                              |   |
|                                           |   |
| Dated:   November 14, 2003 |   |

 

 

I, Richard P. Rainey,Chief Financial Officer of AVAX Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify pursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, United StatesCode, and Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof my knowledge (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company to whichthis Exhibit is attached (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Richard P. Rainey                          |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Richard P. Rainey                              |   |
|                                           |   |
| Dated:   November 14, 2003 |   |

 

----
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 Annual Report of Millennium
Healthcare Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dominick Sartorio, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Dominick Sartorio   |  | Date: April 15, 2014 | 
|----------------------- |  | -------------------- | 
|Dominick Sartorio       |  |                     
|Chief Executive Officer |  |
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











We, each hereby certify to the best of our knowledge that the Annual Report of Form 10-K of Gateway Tax Credit Fund II, Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 2010 containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)) and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway.








/s/ Ronald M. Diner

Ronald M. Diner

President

Raymond James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.

(the Managing General Partner)

June 29, 2010/s/ Toni S. Matthews

Toni S. Matthews

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Raymond James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.

(the Managing General Partner)

June 29, 2010
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### John Howard Joynt v. Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Alexandria et al.

July 21, 1982

Case No. (Law) 7314

By JUDGE ALBERT H. GRENADIER

The defendant Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Alexandria has moved to quash the interrogatories and request for production of documents filed by the plaintiff. The Board alleges that Rule 4:0 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia is not applicable to appeals under § 15.1-497 of the Code of Virginia. The Board also states that even if Part Four of the Rules of Court is applicable, the individual members of the Board do not have to respond, and any officer or agent of the Board may.

This proceeding is a petition for a writ of certiorari under § 15.1-497 of the Code of Virginia. It is not a trial *de novo*in the strict sense of the term. The Court must decide on the basis of the record of the proceedings before the Board whether the power and discretion of the Board has been properly exercised. However, the Court may take evidence if such evidence is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter.

It is the opinion of the Court that with respect to those items that were a matter of record of the proceedings before the Board discovery should not be permitted. In the event the City intends to present *66additional evidence, the Court believes that the scope of Rule 4:0 is sufficiently broad to permit discovery with respect to that evidence. Such interrogatories and requests for production of documents as fall into this latter category may be answered by the Board through any officer or agent. The individual members of the Board will not be required to respond to the interrogatories or request for production.

It is the Court’s recollection that some of the proceedings before the Board were inadvertently not recorded. Can the parties agree upon the content of that part of the record? If not, can the parties offer any suggestion as to how to effect a resolution of this problem? This question must be resolved as promptly as possible.
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 Agriculture

###### Agricultural Research Service

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of intent.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, intends to grant to DVO, Inc. of Chilton, Wisconsin, an exclusive license to the Federal Government's rights in U.S. Patent No. 8,414,808, “Composite Components from Anaerobic Digested Fibrous Materials”, issued on April 9, 2013.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to: Tom Moreland, Technology Transfer Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250 Mail Stop 2CE-021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Tom Moreland of the USDA Forest Service at the Washington, DC address given above; telephone: 443-677-6858; or email:                         *twmoreland@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The patent rights in this invention are co-owned by the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture, and DVO, Inc. of Chilton, Wisconsin. The prospective exclusive license will grant to the co-owner, DVO, Inc., an exclusive license to the Federal Government's patent rights. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as DVO, Inc. has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Forest Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Mojdeh Bahar,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2017-20180 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
#### Eugene MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sheriff Jim JACK; Sheriffs Department of Harrison County; Bailiff J.R. Moore; Officer Jim Miles, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-7154.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 24, 2008.

*541Eugene Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Boyd Lee Warner, Waters, Warner & Harris, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Miller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Miller v. Jack,*No. 1:06-cv-00064-IMK, 2007 WL 2050409 (N.D.W.Va. July 12, 2007). We deny Miller’s pending motions for transcript at government’s expense, for appointment of counsel, for oral argument, and to have this court appoint a different federal judge from out of state to hear his case. 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.*