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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-30136

Summary Calendar

 

BARTHOLOMESS ROBICHAUX,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CV-1945

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bartholomess Robichaux, Louisiana prisoner # 91571, requests

a Certificate of Appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred.

Robichaux argues that his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was timely

because he timely mailed his writ application to the Louisiana

Supreme Court while incarcerated at Orleans Parish Prison in March

2001.
No. 05-30136

-2-

To obtain a COA, Robichaux must make a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

When, as here, a district court dismisses a habeas petition on

procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional

claims, a COA may not issue unless the prisoner shows that “jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Robichaux has shown that reasonable jurists would debate

whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct and has

also shown that his petition states a claim for the denial of a

constitutional right. See id. Accordingly, a COA is hereby

GRANTED.

Rule X § 5(a) of the Louisiana Supreme Court Rules provides

that a petition for review of a decision of a court of appeal must

be filed within 30 days of the mailing of the notice of the

original judgment of the court of appeal. Rule X § 5(d) provides

that an application for a writ is deemed timely if mailed before

the filing deadline. Thus the very language of the rule itself

defines filing as timely mailing, and no resort to a mailbox rule

is required. Documents submitted by Robichaux on appeal as well as

filings of record and the subsequent treatment of his writ on

direct appeal in the state courts indicate that his writ
No. 05-30136

-3-

application was timely filed. See Grillette v. Warden, 372 F.3d

765, 775 (5th Cir. 2004); State v. Sosa, 888 So. 2d 192 (La. 2004).

The district court’s judgment denying Robichaux’s 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition as time-barred is hereby VACATED, and this case is

REMANDED to the district court for consideration of the

constitutional claims set forth in Robichaux’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition.

GRANT COA; VACATE and REMAND.
[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:****Electricity infocard [electronicresource].
 
1998| 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2005 | 2006
 
SuDoc Number:E 3.2:EL 2/12 | E 3.11/17-15:
Item Number:0429-T-11 (online) | 0435-E-48 (online)
CGP System Number:000609113
 
 
 
** 
**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********
#### In the Matter of Dresser-Rand Company, Appellant, v Nancy Champlin, as Assessor of City of Olean, et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 821]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, A.J.), entered January 3, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7. The order granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion in part, granting the petition in part and reducing the assessment for the 2005 tax year to $495,000 and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 seeking, inter alia, a reduction of the assessment of the fair market value of its property for the 2005 tax year or, in the alternative, to modify the “Stipulation of Settlement and Order” (stipulation) by reducing the stipulated fair market value of the property. Supreme Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the stipulation “binds the parties concerning the litigation over the assessment of this parcel through the tax year 2007.” We conclude that the court properly granted the motion insofar as the petition seeks to reduce the assessment of the fair market value of the property. As the court properly determined, the stipulation conclusively establishes a defense to the request for that relief. Petitioner’s reliance on RPTL 727 is misplaced, because there was no “physical change” to the property (RPTL 727 [2] [c]), nor was the property altered as a result of “fire, demolition, destruction or similar catastrophe” (RPTL 727 [2] [e]). Finally, petitioner’s reliance on the doctrines of mutual mistake and unilateral mistake is not supported by the record.

*1157We agree with petitioner, however, that the court erred in granting the motion insofar as the petition seeks to apply an equalization rate of 9% to the agreed-upon fair market value of the property in determining petitioner’s assessment for the 2005 tax year, and we conclude that the petition should be granted in that respect. We therefore modify the order accordingly. The stipulation is ambiguous with respect to the applicable equalization rate, and we must construe that ambiguity in favor of the taxpayer *(see Matter of Bloomingdale Bros, v Chu,*70 NY2d 218, 223 [1987]). We decline to address that part of the petition seeking to apply an equalization rate of 9% for the 2006 and 2007 tax years because the record is silent with respect to the equalization rate for those tax years. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Lunn, Peradotto and Green, JJ.
§ 700.155 Grant agreement and administration. ( a ) *General.* HUD will enter into grant agreements with grantees, to provide congregate services for program participants in eligible housing projects, in order to meet the purposes of CHSP.
( b ) *Term of grant agreement and reservation of amount.* A grant will be for a term of five years and the Secretary concerned shall reserve a sum equal to the total approved grant amount for each grantee. Grants will be renewable at the expiration of a term, subject to the availability of funds and conformance with the regulations in this part, except as otherwise provided in section 700.160.
( c ) *Monitoring of project sites by governmental units.* States, Indian tribes, and units of general local government with a grant covering multiple projects shall monitor, review, and evaluate Program performance at each project site for compliance with CHSP regulations and procedures, in such manner as prescribed by HUD or RHS.
( d ) *Reports.* Each grantee shall submit program and fiscal reports and program budgets to the Secretary concerned in such form and at such times, as the Secretary concerned requires.
( e ) *Enforcement.* The Secretary concerned will enforce the obligations of the grantee under the agreement through such action as may be necessary, including terminating grants, recapturing grant funds, and imposing sanctions. ( 1 ) These actions may be taken for: ( i ) A grantee's non-compliance with the grant agreement or HUD or RHS regulations;
( ii ) Failure of the grantee to provide supportive services within 12 months of execution of the grant agreement.
( 2 ) Sanctions include but are not limited to the following: ( i ) Temporary withholding of reimbursements or extensions or renewals under the grant agreement, pending correction of deficiencies by the grantee;
( ii ) Setting conditions in the contract;
( iii ) Termination of the grant;
( iv ) Substitution of grantee; and
( v ) Any other action deemed necessary by the Secretary concerned.
( f ) *Renewal of grants.* Subject to the availability of funding, satisfactory performance, and compliance with the regulations in this part: ( 1 ) Grantees funded initially under this part shall be eligible to receive continued, non-competitive renewals after the initial five-year term of the grant.
( 2 ) Grantees will receive priority funding and grants will be renewed within time periods prescribed by the Secretary concerned.
( g ) *Use of Grant Funds.* If during any year, grantees use less than the annual amount of CHSP funds provided to them for that year, the excess amount can be carried forward for use in later years.
### §2308. Tax exemption for gifts

Gifts and bequests received by the Board under this chapter, and the income from them are exempt from taxes.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1293.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §300gg (July 9, 1941, ch. 284, §7, 55 Stat. 582).
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3029 

To extend the suspension of duty on Benzyl carbazate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2005 

Mr. CASTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on Benzyl carbazate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BENZYL CARBAZATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.44 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Benzyl carbazate) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

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
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

CRAIG YATES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUSHI GROOVE,

Defendant. /

No. C-09-02437 EDL

ORDER VACATING DATES AND

SETTING DEADLINE FOR STATUS

REPORT OR DISMISSAL

On July 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement stating that the parties have agreed to

settlement terms which fully resolve the claims in this case. No later than November 15, 2010, the

parties shall file a status report regarding settlement of this case or a dismissal of the entire action. 

Good cause appearing, any other deadlines on calendar are vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02437-EDL Document 15 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
23.1




INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
GlobalOptions Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-153097), Form S-8 (File No.
333-139368), Form S-8 (File No. 333-136458), Form S-3 (File No. 333-149020) and
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form SB-2 on Form S-3 (File No. 333-145053) of
our report dated March 16, 2010, with respect to our audits of the consolidated
financial statements of GlobalOptions Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008 and for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and
2007, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
GlobalOptions Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.




/s/
Marcum LLP


Marcum
LLP




New York,
New York





March 16,
2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1  
<CASH>                                           2,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,857
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                     16,806
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,033
<PP&E>                                           7,945
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,059
<BONDS>                                         64,949
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       114,280
<OTHER-SE>                                    (143,609)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,679
<SALES>                                         24,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,376
<CGS>                                           15,612
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,805
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,590)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,844)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,844)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.14)
        

</TABLE>
#### Sandor Nagy, appellee, v. Fort Dearborn National Bank, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,176.

Suit to recover money paid for the purchase of Hungarian crowns in 1916, and for value thereof according to exchange then prevailing. Judgment for plaintiff with interest. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 31, 1923.

Henry J. Aaron and Charles Aaron, for appellant; Franklin Raber, of counsel. Earl J. Walker, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 327

AN ACT

To allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all 

contracts affecting land within the Gila River Indian 

Community Reservation.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 327 EH 

1 SECTION 1. BINDING ARBITRATION FOR GILA RIVER IN2 DIAN COMMUNITY RESERVATION CON3 TRACTS. 

4 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Subsection (f) of the first sec5 tion of the Act of August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(f)), is 

6 amended—

7 (1) in the first sentence—

8 (A) by striking ‘‘Any lease’’ and all that 

9 follows through ‘‘affecting land’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘Any contract, including a lease, affecting 

11 land’’; and 

12 (B) by striking ‘‘such lease or contract’’ 

13 and inserting ‘‘such contract’’; and 

14 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘Such 

15 leases or contracts entered into pursuant to such 

16 Acts’’ and inserting ‘‘Such contracts’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in Public 

19 Law 107–159 (116 Stat. 122).

Passed the House of Representatives December 7, 

2005. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 327

AN ACT

To allow binding arbitration clauses to be included 

River Indian Community Reservation.in all contracts affecting land within the Gila
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VITECH
AMERICA, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         429,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,141,483
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 15,145,438
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,204,074
<PP&E>                                       2,972,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,002,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,909,288
<BONDS>                                        863,209
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       326,870
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,903,437
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,002,804
<SALES>                                     43,925,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,925,852
<CGS>                                       31,005,728
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,005,728
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             844,165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,245,252
<INCOME-TAX>                                   440,506
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,804,745
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,804,745
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hugo Nelson MELGAR-GARCIA, a/k/a Hugo Melgar, a/k/a Antonio Pereira, a/k/a Wagner Paz, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-6307.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2007.

Decided: May 3, 2007.

Hugo Nelson Melgar-Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Huseman, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*190Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hugo Nelson Melgar-Garcia seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to modify or reduce his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Melgar-Garcia,*No. 1:00-cr-00342-TSE (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 20, 2007; entered Feb. 22, 2007). 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.*
#### § 241.897 Actions to be taken by lender.

With respect to any action required of the lender within a period of time prescribed by this subpart, the Commissioner may extend such period.
Docket No: FAA-2015-3631 Dir ID: 2015-NM-060-AD

FAA MCAI AD WORKSHEET (CONTINUED)

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 3/5/15

Regional Airline Association 3/5/15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 3/5/15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 3/5/15
#### Gillespie *et al. v.*Ewing.

September 27, 1912.

Complaint. Before Judge Fite. Gordon superior court. June *21,*1911.

Fish, C. J.

1. None of the exceptions taken to the instructions given to the jury, when considered in connection with the entire charge, required the grant of a new trial.

2. The evidence, though conflicting, authorized the verdict, and the refusal of a new trial will not he disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*738
      *F. A. Cantrell*and *Maddox, McCamy & Shumate,*for plaintiffs in error. *O. N. Starr,*contra.
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the
undersigned, David J Cutler, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Aspeon, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report Form 10QSB for the three months and nine months ended March
31, 2004 of the Company (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1034,  and  the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:       October 28, 2005

By /s/ David J Cutler
   ----------------------
David J Cutler
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer