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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6616

ALBERT JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE; WILLIAM D. CATOE; GEORGE N.

MARTIN, III; WILLIAM DAVIS; S. HUNTER RENTZ,

Doctor; MARIA BLANDSHAW; DEBORAH T. SMITH;

ROSE MARY MURPHY; JAMES BRYAN; JOHN PATE, JR.,

Doctor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-3101-2-11)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Jones, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Columbia,

South Carolina; William Llewellyn Pope, POPE & RODGERS, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

to the extent that Appellant’s objections to the magistrate judge’s

report were sufficient to preserve appellate review, there was no

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

district court. See Jones v. Moore, No. CA-96-3101-2-11 (D.S.C.

Apr. 6, 1998); see also Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th

Cir. 1982). We deny Jones’s motion to appoint counsel. 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
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AUDIENCE,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-01176 SI

ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON

SETTLEMENT

The parties to the action, by their counsel, have advised the court that they have agreed

to a settlement. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. However, that

if any party hereto certifies to this court, with proof of service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel,

within ninety days from the date hereof, that settlement has not in fact occurred, the foregoing order

shall be vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar for further proceedings.

Dated: SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01176-SI Document 73 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 1
11-i CHAPTER 11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUB-GROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
11.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1 11.2 PURCHASE PRICE INCREASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-111-1 CHAPTER 11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUB-GROUP ANALYSIS 11.1 INTRODUCTION The life-cycle cost (LCC) sub-group analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable groups or customers who may be disproportionate ly affected by any national energy-efficiency standard level. This will be accomplished, in part, by analyzing the LCC and payback periods for those customers that fall into any identifiable groups. The Department will conduct this analysis during the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) stage of this rulemaking. In the NOPR stage, the Department plans to evaluate variations in regional energy prices and variations in energy use that might affect the net present value (NPV) of a standard to customer sub-populations. To the extent possible, the Department will obtain estimates of the variability of each input parameter and will consider this variability in its calculation of customer impacts. Variations in energy use for a particular equipment type depend on factors such as climate and building type. The Department plans to perform sensitivity analyses to consider how differences in energy use will affect sub-groups of customers. The Department will determine the impact on customer sub-groups using the LCC spreadsheet model. The spreadsheet model used for the LCC analysis can be used with different data inputs. The standard LCC analysis (described in Chapter 8) includes residential buildings that use furnaces and boilers. The LCC for any sub-group of national population, can be analyzed using the LCC spreadsheet model by sampling only that sub-group. (Chapter 8 explains in detail the inputs to the spreadsheet used in determining life-cycle cost and payback periods.) 11.2 PURCHASE PRICE INCREASES The Department will be especially sensitive to increases in the purchase price of equipment, to avoid negative impacts on identifiable population groups, such as low income consumers (i.e., those with low annual income), that may not be able to afford significant increases in equipment price. For such customers that are sensitive to price increases, increases in first costs of a product can preclude the purchase of a new model of that product. As a result, some customers may retain products past their useful life. These older products are generally less efficient to begin with, and their efficiency may deteriorate further if they are retained beyond their useful life. Increases in first cost also can preclude the purchase and use of a product altogether, resulting in a potentially large loss of utility to the customer.
### §362. Injury to signposts and filling up or fouling water supply

Whoever shall willfully or maliciously injure, destroy, deface, or remove any of said monuments or signposts, or shall willfully or maliciously fill up, render foul, or in anywise destroy or impair the utility of said springs, streams, or water holes, or shall willfully or maliciously interfere with said monuments, signposts, streams, springs, or water holes, or the purposes for which they are maintained and used, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(Aug. 21, 1916, ch. 360, §3, 39 Stat. 518.)
### §1066. Permission of Secretary to sue

Where the alleged unlawful inclosure includes less than one hundred and sixty acres of land, no suit shall be brought under the provisions of this chapter without authority from the Secretary of the Interior.

(Feb. 25, 1885, ch. 149, §6, 23 Stat. 322.)
### §151. Opening of lands restored to entry after withdrawals

When public lands are excluded from national forests or released from withdrawals the President may, whenever in his judgment it is proper or necessary, provide for the opening of the lands by settlement in advance of entry, by drawing, or by such other method as he may deem advisable in the interest of equal opportunity and good administration, and in doing so may provide that lands so opened shall be subject only to homestead entry by actual settlers only or to entry under the desert-land laws for a period not exceeding ninety days, the unentered lands to be thereafter subject to disposition under the public-land laws applicable thereto.

(Sept. 30, 1913, ch. 15, §1, 38 Stat. 113.)
EXHIBIT 32

     CERTIFICATE 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  Forsyth  Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Timothy  M. Perry, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Timothy D.
Foreman,  Chief Financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec.  1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/  Timothy M. Perry
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Timothy M. Perry, President and C.E.O.
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)





                                   /s/ Timothy D. Foreman
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Timothy D. Foreman, C.F.O.
                                   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


November 10, 2003


<PAGE>
### §5741. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §656, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2124

Section, Pub. L. 93–415, title III, §331, as added Pub. L. 95–115, §7(c), Oct. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 1059; amended Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695, authorized President to submit to Congress after April 30, 1978, a reorganization plan for establishment of an Office of Youth Assistance, subject to Congressional resolution of disapproval.

Prior to repeal by Pub. L. 98–473, section 5741 of this title comprised part C of this subchapter. Section 657(e) of Pub. L. 98–473 redesignated former part D, consisting of section 5751 (now 34 U.S.C. 11280) of this title, as part C. Previously, part C was redesignated part D by Pub. L. 95–115, §7(c), Oct. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 1059.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 12, 1984, see section 670(a) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date of 1984 Amendment note under section 11101 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Lisa Freihofner, Appellant, v Gregory Freihofner, Respondent. Miano & Colangelo, Nonparty Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 234]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Montagnino, Ct Atty Ref), dated August 5, 2004, as (a), in effect, denied that branch of her motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees, and (b) denied that branch of her motion which was to direct the defendant to be responsible for past and future fees due the Law Guardians, and (2) from an order of the same court (Giacomo, J.), entered August 1, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted the motion of the nonparty Miano & Colangelo to hold her in contempt for failing to comply with a so-ordered stipulation dated January 26, 2004.

Ordered that the order dated August 5, 2004 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered August 1, 2005 is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, who was ultimately found to be unjustified in relocating with one of the parties’ children, and who lost physical custody of that child *(see Freihofner v Freihofner,*33 AD3d 585, 586 [2006]), moved, inter alia, for an award of interim counsel fees in connection with that custody dispute. Under these circumstances, the Court Attorney Referee, who properly took “the relative merit of the parties’ positions” into account *(DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]), providently exercised his discretion in refusing to award her any interim counsel fees *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]).

*466In addition, following the denial of that branch of her motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees, the plaintiff, who was awarded a $100,000 advance against her distributive award, gave that money to her current attorney, in partial satisfaction of outstanding legal fees. However, at the time, there was a lawful court order in effect that clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate that she place any monies that she was given as a distributive award in escrow, to satisfy a charging lien that existed in favor of her former attorney, who was also owed substantial legal fees *(see McCain v Dinkins,*84 NY2d 216, 225-226 [1994]; *cf. Haser v Haser,*271 AD2d 253, 255 [2000]). Since the plaintiff had knowledge of this mandate, and since her actions prejudiced her former attorney, the Supreme Court properly granted her former attorney’s motion to hold her in civil contempt *(see*Judiciary Law § 753 [A]; *McCain v Dinkins, supra*at 225-226).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur. [See 8 Misc 3d 1020(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51210(11) (2005).]
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****Light list. Volume IV, Gulf of Mexico, Econfina River, Florida to the Rio Grande, Texas.
 
2007
2010 | 2011| 2012 | 2013 | 2014| 2015 | 2016 | 2017| 2018 | 2019
2020 | 2021
 
SuDoc Number:HS 7.22:V.4/
Item Number:0520-L-04 (online)
CGP System Number:000609058
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of the  United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access to  official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 7, 2017********
Filed 10/22/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2013 ND 177

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Brett Allen Goulet, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20130148

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Debbie Gordon Kleven, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Meredith H. Larson, Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, ND 58206-5607, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

David N. Ogren, Grand Forks Public Defender Office, 405 Bruce Ave., Ste. 101, Grand Forks, ND 58201, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Goulet

No. 20130148

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Brett Allen Goulet appealed from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault.  On appeal, Goulet argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).  

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2310

ELEANOR GAMBELLI, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DIXTER HANDY; NICHOLAS HUNTZINGER; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, as Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Carrier, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-94-868-2)
Argued: May 9, 1996 Decided: June 14, 1996
Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: William David Breit, BREIT, DRESCHER & BREIT, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Anita K. Henry, Assistant United States Attorney, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia; Lynn Ellen Watson, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Billie Hobbs, BREIT, DRESCHER & BREIT, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas C. Dawson, Jr., HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant Eleanor Gambelli challenges the district court's dismissal of her tort claim against the United States and against two private individuals for injuries sustained in an automobile accident that occurred when she reentered her car moments after a prior accident. After the first accident, Corporal Edward Williams, a naval police officer who happened to pass by, stopped gratuitously -- even though he was outside his jurisdiction -- to ensure that nobody was injured and that the local police had been called. Because, she alleges, Corporal Williams did not foresee that Gambelli might subsequently become involved in a second accident, and secure the area accordingly, she sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Additionally, she sued the drivers of the two cars involved in the accidents, under pendent party jurisdiction and, allegedly, under diversity. The district court dismissed the claim against the United States because Corporal Williams did not undertake any course of action that would obligate him to prevent future accidents and because, in any event, he was acting outside the scope of his employment. Subsequently, and after an additional hearing devoted solely to the matter, the district court dismissed the claims against the individual drivers because, although discovery had proceeded for several months, Gambelli had failed to produce any probative evidence of diversity, which both drivers denied. We have considered all of the arguments raised by the parties in their briefs and at oral argument, and, for the reasons stated4 in the two thorough opinions issued by the district court, we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.

AFFIRMED
#### LAUTZ et al. v. WILLIAMS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 1, 1905.)

Action by Amelia E. Lautz and another against Frank F. Williams and others. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2837 

To extend the duty suspension on sodium methylate powder. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2005 

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the duty suspension on sodium methylate powder. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SODIUM METHYLATE POWDER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.36 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 sodium methylate powder) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### BENITO LUGO *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 25512)

Bishop, DiPentima and McLachlan, Js.

Submitted on briefs April 29

officially released June 28, 2005

*Michael A. D’Onofrio,*special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner).

*James E. Thomas,*state’s attorney, *Melissa L. Streelo,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, and *Robin Cutuli,*assistant state’s attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Benito Lugo, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal.

On October 24, 1995, the petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, and one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-54a. He thereafter was sentenced to a total effective term of forty years incarceration. On December 10, 2001, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus that alleged ineffective assistance on the part of his trial counsel. Following a one day trial at which the petitioner was the only witness, the court concluded that the petitioner had not satisfied *874his burden of proving either deficient performance on the part of his counsel or prejudice resulting therefrom. See *Strickland*v. *Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); *Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction,*218 Conn. 403, 424, 589 A.2d 1214 (1991). Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court subsequently denied the petition for certification to appeal.

After a careful review of the record and briefs, we conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the issues raised are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner or that the questions raised deserve encouragement to proceed further. See *Lozada*v. *Deeds,*498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991); *Simms*v. *Warden,*230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

The appeal is dismissed.
----

|   | (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      as of and for the period covered by theReport. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/      John C. Roman                                 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   | John      C. Roman                                     |
|   | President      and Chief Executive Officer             |
|   |                                                   |
|   |                                                   |
|   | /s/      Lee R. Schlesinger                            |
|   | Lee      R. Schlesinger                                |
|   | Senior      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                                   |