alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 97-60259

Summary Calendar

_______________

LORI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

PEOPLES BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:96CV57-JAD)

_________________________

October 3, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lori Johnson sues her former employer, Peoples Bank and Trust

Company, for alleged violations of title VII and the Equal Pay Act.

We affirm, essentially for the reasons stated by the Magistrate

Judge in his Memorandum Opinion entered January 7, 1997, regarding

title VII, and his Memorandum Opinion entered March 20, 1997,
2

regarding the Equal Pay Act.

It is evident, from the record, that Johnson did not sue

within 180 days of the date on which she learned of the alleged

discrimination, as required by title VII. There is no evidence

that the pay differentials of which Johnson complains were based on

sex, as the Equal Pay Act requires.

AFFIRMED.
§ 658.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application? ( a ) The Secretary evaluates an application from an institution of higher education or a consortium of such institutions on the basis of the criteria in §§ 658.31 and 658.32. The Secretary informs applicants of the maximum possible score for each criterion in the application package or in a notice published in the Federal Register.
( b ) The Secretary evaluates an application from an agency or organization or professional or scholarly association on the basis of the criteria in §§ 658.31 and 658.33. The Secretary informs applicants of the maximum possible score for each criterion in the application package or in a notice published in the Federal Register.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1124)
[70 FR 13375, Mar. 21, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 35074, July 17, 2009]
§ 607.24 How does the Secretary use an applicant's performance under a previous development grant when awarding a development grant? ( a ) ( 1 ) In addition to evaluating an application under the selection criteria in § 607.22, the Secretary evaluates an applicant's performance under any previous development grant awarded under the Strengthening Institutions Program that expired within five years of the year when the development grant will begin.
( 2 ) The Secretary evaluates whether the applicant fulfilled, or is making substantial progress toward fulfilling, the goals and objectives of the previous grant, including, but not limited to, the applicant's success in institutionalizing practices developed and improvements made under the grant.
( 3 ) The Secretary bases the evaluation of the applicant's performance on information contained in— ( i ) Performance and evaluation reports submitted by the applicant;
( ii ) Audit reports submitted on behalf of the applicant; and
( iii ) Other information obtained by the Secretary, including reports prepared by the Department.
( b ) If the Secretary initially determines that the applicant did not fulfill the goals and objectives of a previous grant or is not making substantial progress towards fulfilling those goals and objectives, the Secretary affords the applicant the opportunity to respond to that initial determination.
( c ) If the Secretary determines that the applicant did not fulfill the goals and objectives of a previous grant or is not making substantial progress towards fulfilling those goals and objectives, the Secretary may— ( 1 ) Decide not to fund the applicant; or
( 2 ) Fund the applicant but impose special grant terms and conditions, such as specific reporting and monitoring requirements.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1066)
[59 FR 41925, Aug. 15, 1994, as amended at 64 FR 70155, Dec. 15, 1999]
### subpart b—national customs automation program
### §331. Mutilation, diminution, and falsification of coins

Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or

Whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled, or lightened—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 700; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, §1, 65 Stat. 121; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §279 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §165, 35 Stat. 1119).

Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.

Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of "principal" in section 2 of this title.

Changes were also made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $2,000".

1951—Act July 16, 1951, made section applicable to minor coins (5-cent and 1-cent pieces), and to fraudulent alteration of coins.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------
                                        

Household Finance Corporation:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated January 20, 1999, included in this annual report on Form 10-K of
Household Finance Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1998, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements No. 33-64175, No. 333-47945,
No. 333-60543, No. 333-59453 and No. 333-72453 on Form S-3.



Arthur Andersen LLP

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 25, 1999
### §1496. Examination of baggage

The appropriate customs officer may cause an examination to be made of the baggage of any person arriving in the United States in order to ascertain what articles are contained therein and whether subject to duty, free of duty, or prohibited notwithstanding a declaration and entry therefor has been made.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, §496, 46 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 91–271, title III, §301(b), June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 287.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, §496, 42 Stat. 964. That section was superseded by section 496 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.

#### Amendments

1970—Pub. L. 91–271 substituted reference to appropriate customs officer for reference to collector.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 91–271, see section 203 of Pub. L. 91–271, set out as a note under section 1500 of this title.
Independent Auditors' Report


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Belmont Homes, Inc.:

We have audited the consolidated statements of income,  shareholders' equity and
cash flows of Belmont Homes,  Inc. and subsidiaries  (Belmont)for the year ended
December  31, 1996.  These  consolidated  financial  statements  (not  presented
separately herein) are the responsibility of the management of the Company.  Our
responsibility  is  to  express  an  opinion  on  these  consolidated  financial
statements based on our audit.

We  conducted  our  audit  in  accordance   with  generally  accepted   auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and  perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test  basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial  statements. An audit also includes
assessing  the  accounting  principles  used and  significant estimates  made by
management, as well  as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In  our  opinion,  the  consolidated   financial  statements  referred to  above
present  fairly,  in all  material  respects,  the  results  of   operations and
cash flows of Belmont Homes,  Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended  December
31,  1996,  in  conformity  with  generally accepted accounting principles.

                                        /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Jackson, Mississippi                    KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
February 21, 1997
### **CHAPTER 14—UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PRE-1972 SOUND RECORDINGS**

Sec.
1401.
Unauthorized use of pre-1972 sound recordings.
§ 34.8 Providing a hearing. ( a ) We provide a hearing if you submit a written request for a hearing concerning the existence, amount, or enforceability of the debt or the rate of wage withholding.
( b ) At our option the hearing may be an oral hearing under § 34.9 or a paper hearing under § 34.10.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3720D)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 775

 779

 803

 760

 721

 700

 677

 644

 609

 586

 609

 635

 575

 654

 686

 690

 693

 691

 701

 755

 606

 733

 703

 647

 696

 693

 753

 784

 797

 797

 835

 414

 417

 424

 427

 426

 370

 429

 382

 390

 452

 430

 435

 435

 446

 420

 421

 399

 286

 296

 335

 372

 426

 384

 412

 425

 397

 385

 374

 381

 384

 361

 539

 551

 602

 555

 554

 538

 543

 508

 505

 509

 498

 519

 488

 531

 526

 547

 529

 467

 480

 546

 455

 575

 499

 543

 557

 487

 519

 546

 569

 582

 563

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 19, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 349

 357

 388

 359

 358

 348

 352

 330

 328

 331

 324

 337

 318

 344

 341

 354

 343

 305

 313

 353

 297

 371

 324

 352

 360

 317

 337

 353

 368

 376

 364

TOTAL 16,430

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
§ 75.600 Use of a grant for construction: Purpose of §§ 75.601-75.615. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70331 , Aug. 29, 2024.
Sections 75.601-75.615 apply to: ( a ) An applicant that requests funds for construction; and
( b ) A grantee whose grant includes funds for construction.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
### §122. Repealed. June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, §651(a)(1), 46 Stat. 762, eff. June 18, 1930

Section, act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title II, §201, 42 Stat. 922, related to the free list. Corresponding provisions of Tariff Act of 1930, see section 1202 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         533,579
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,377,291
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,708,098
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,186,061
<PP&E>                                       5,767,351
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,542,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,282,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,712,911
<BONDS>                                        417,928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,199,750
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,910,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,282,140
<SALES>                                     18,826,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,826,827
<CGS>                                       11,541,685
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,912,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (51,527)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (643,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (375,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (268,171)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (268,171)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)


</TABLE>
### §1494. Expense of weighing and measuring

In all cases in which the invoice or entry does not state the weight, quantity, or measure of the merchandise, the expense of ascertaining the same shall be collected from the importer of record before its release from customs custody.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, §494, 46 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 97–446, title II, §201(e), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2350.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, §494, 42 Stat. 964. That section was superseded by section 494 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.

A prior provision requiring merchandise to be weighed, gauged or measured at the expense of the owner, agent or consignee, in cases in which the invoice or entry did not contain the weight, quantity or measure was contained in R.S. §2920, prior to repeal by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, §642, 42 Stat. 989.

#### Amendments

1983—Pub. L. 97–446 substituted "importer of record" for "consignee" after "collected from the".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1983 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–446 applicable with respect to merchandise entered on and after 30th day after Jan. 12, 1983, see section 201(g) of Pub. L. 97–446, set out as a note under section 1484 of this title.
Exhibit 31.1 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION302**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Alton L. Smith III, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Carolina Investment Partners Limited Partnership; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 annual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluations; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent 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 effect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon 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 function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls. 

 

Date: March 31, 2005
(No. 7110

#### Hugh L. Higgins and Wiley G. Yokley, Claimants, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 28, 1973.*

Hugh L. Higgins and Wiley G. Yokley, Claimants, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

*393This cause coming on to be heard on the Joint Stipulation of the parties hereto and the Court being fully advised in the premises;

THIS COURT FINDS that this expenditure was for the return, by the County of Macon, of fugitives from justice. The counties are required to travel to other jurisdictions for the return of fugitives when the fugitives have been located and apprehended in various jurisdictions throughout the country. The expenses herein reflect the expenses incurred by the County of Macon in sending their sheriffs and deputies to return apprehended fugitives. The investigation and reports from the Department of Law Enforcement indicate that the appropriations for this purpose were expended and a deficiency appropriation of $20,000.00 was requested. However, even before the $20,000.00 was received for reimbursing the various counties for these expenses, it became apparent that even this $20,000.00 deficiency appropriation was going to be inadequate. The original appropriation was expended and the $20,000.00 was used up also, leaving some of these expenses unpaid. Under the rules set forth in *Fergus*vs. *Brady,*277 Ill. 272, this Court finds that inasmuch as the State was unable to anticipate the amount necessary to appropriate for this expense and that since this expenditure was one required of the State by statute, this Court awards claimants as follows:

Hugh L. Higgins............................................$269.22

Wiley G. Yokley............................................ 269.22

Total $538.44
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER

I, Steven L. Suss, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Excelsior Venture Partners III, LLC;

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 17, 2008



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven L. Suss                                   
|Steven L. Suss, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer



27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 9,933

 9,151

 9,535

 10,114

 10,327

 10,559

 10,420

 9,827

 9,852

 9,643

 10,419

 10,830

 9,976

 9,302

 8,742

 7,519

 8,021

 8,008

 7,838

 7,841

 8,344

 8,753

 8,667

 8,853

 7,474

 7,343

 6,731

 6,031

 5,554

 4,751

 3,579

 3,500

 3,624

 3,710

 3,637

 3,308

 2,993

 2,581

 2,026

 1,567

 2,022

 2,122

 1,994

 2,514

 2,627

 2,543

 2,662

 2,762

 1,964

 1,690

 1,337

 1,130

 1,053

 1,449

 1,394

 1,905

 1,925

 2,217

 2,142

 1,794

 6,583

 6,271

 6,123

 6,369

 6,475

 6,576

 6,517

 6,307

 5,985

 5,477

 5,858

 6,032

 5,525

 5,759

 5,632

 5,148

 5,251

 5,102

 4,451

 4,358

 4,179

 4,152

 4,296

 4,300

 4,250

 4,258

 3,979

 4,088

 3,761

 3,193

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 15, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

COLLINSVILLE BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER