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

**No. 13**  **- 7646** 

RICKY LAMAR TURNER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. COMMISSIONER, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T.S. Ellis, I I I, Senior District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 01303

- TSE

- JFA )

Submitted : February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ricky Lamar Turner , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ricky Lamar Turner appeals the district court ’ s order s denyi ng relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2 012 ) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Turner v. Commissioner , No. 1:1 2

- cv - 01303

- TSE

- JFA (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2013; Oct. 1, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We  consent  to the incorporation by reference (1) in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-34906, Form S-8 No. 33-43102 and Form  S-8
No.  33-84094)  pertaining to the Provident Bancorp, Inc.  1988  Stock
Option Plan, (2) in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement  (Form  S-8 No. 33-34904) pertaining to the  1990  Provident
Bancorp,  Inc.  Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (3) in the  Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-90792) pertaining to the Provident Bancorp,
Inc. Retirement Plan, (4) in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.
33-51230  and No. 33-62707) pertaining to the 1992 Outside  Directors'
Stock  Option Plan and the 1992 Advisory Directors' Stock Option  Plan
and  (5)  in  the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  33-61576)
pertaining  to the Provident Bancorp, Inc. Deferred Compensation  Plan
of our report dated January 18, 1996, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Provident Bancorp, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995.





                                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP






Cincinnati, Ohio
March 25, 1996
### §2235a. Deposit and retention of credit card refunds or rebates

On and after November 28, 2001, refunds or rebates received on an on-going basis from a credit card services provider under the Department of Agriculture's charge card programs may be deposited to and retained without fiscal year limitation in the Department's Working Capital Fund established under section 2235 of this title and used to fund management initiatives of general benefit to the Department of Agriculture bureaus and offices as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary's designee.

(Pub. L. 107–76, title VII, §729, Nov. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 736.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior appropriation act:

Pub. L. 106–387, §1(a) [title I, §757], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–43.
### §124l. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 107–296, title II, §210E, as added Pub. L. 110–53, title X, §1001(a), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 372, which related to national asset database, was renumbered section 2214 of Pub. L. 107–296 by Pub. L. 115–278, §2(g)(2)(G), Nov. 16, 2018, 132 Stat. 4178, and transferred to section 664 of this title.
No. 745.

#### Antonio Cisneros Chapa *v.*United States.

March 29, 1920.

*Mr. C. M. Chambers*for petitioner.

*Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart*and *Mr. H. S. Ridgely*for the United States.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

HARRY ORLANDO-PAPIAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50241

D.C. No. 3:05-CR-00699-TJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Harry Orlando-Papias appeals from the sentence imposed upon revocation of

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Papias contends that the district court procedurally erred by not sufficiently

explaining his sentence and impermissibly relying primarily upon the need to

FILED

JUN 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-50241

punish him for the criminal conduct underlying the revocation. These contentions

lack merit because the record reflects that the district court listened to the parties’

arguments and adopted probation’s reasoning, which emphasized Papias’ overall

criminal history, including the fact that Papias had reoffended eight months after

his release from custody. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).

Papias further asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because

the sentence imposed is greater than necessary to further the relevant sentencing

goals set forth under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e). The sentence imposed is

substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.A** **CERTIFICATION**     I, James J. Cleary, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of El Paso Natural Gas Company;     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.     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. */s/  James    J. Cleary*    James J. Cleary    President    (Principal Executive Officer)    El Paso Natural Gas Company     Date: August 7, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Cole and Duff

BOK DUK KIM

v. Record No. 2020-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM CASH FLEX MARCH 12, 1996 AND LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Bok Duk Kim, pro se , on brief). (Michael L. Zimmerman; Brault, Palmer, Grove, Zimmerman, White & Mims, on brief), for appellees.

Bok Duk Kim appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission dismissing her application alleging an occupational disease. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule

5A:27.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. This appeal is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in The Stenrich Group v. Jemmott , ___ Va. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (1996) (holding that "job-related impairments resulting from cumulative trauma caused by repetitive motion, however labeled or however defined, are, as a matter of law, not compensable under the present provisions of the Act"). Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision2 Affirmed

.
### §136i–2. Collection of pesticide use information

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of Agriculture shall collect data of statewide or regional significance on the use of pesticides to control pests and diseases of major crops and crops of dietary significance, including fruits and vegetables.

#### (b) Collection

The data shall be collected by surveys of farmers or from other sources offering statistically reliable data.

#### (c) Coordination

The Secretary of Agriculture shall, as appropriate, coordinate with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the design of the surveys and make available to the Administrator the aggregate results of the surveys to assist the Administrator.

(Pub. L. 104–170, title III, §302, Aug. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 1512.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, and not as part of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act which comprises this subchapter.

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

#### Pesticide Use Information Study

Pub. L. 104–170, title III, §305, Aug. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 1512, required the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to prepare a report to Congress evaluating the current status and potential improvements in Federal pesticide use information gathering activities and to submit the report not later than 1 year following Aug. 3, 1996.
H. Res. 1616 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 17, 2024. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 115) to 

amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide 

for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for 

‘‘midnight rules’’, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 

in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee 

on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered 

as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, 

are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
2 

•HRES 1616 EH 

Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to 

recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
### §4812. Suspension and termination of orders

#### (a) Authority of Secretary

If after the initial referendum provided for in section 4811(a) of this title the Secretary determines that an order, or a provision of the order, obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of this chapter, the Secretary shall terminate or suspend the operation of such order or provision.

#### (b) Referendum to terminate or suspend; eligible voters; requirements for approval; termination or suspension date; one referendum within 2-year period

(1)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (2), after the initial referendum provided for in section 4811(a) of this title, on the request of a number of persons equal to at least 15 percent of persons who have been producers and importers during a representative period, as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum to determine whether the producers and importers favor the termination or suspension of the order.

(B) The Secretary shall—

(i) suspend or terminate collection of assessments under the order not later than 6 months after the date the Secretary determines that suspension or termination of the order is favored by a majority of the producers and importers voting in the referendum; and

(ii) terminate the order in an orderly manner as soon as practicable after the date of such determination.

(2) Except with respect to a referendum required to be conducted under section 4811 of this title, the Secretary shall not be required by paragraph (1) to conduct more than one referendum under this chapter in a 2-year period.

#### (c) Termination or suspension not to be considered an order

The termination or suspension of an order, or a provision of an order, shall not be considered an order within the meaning of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1623, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1618.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1986, see section 1631 of Pub. L. 99–198, set out as a note under section 4801 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Crescenzo Lisi against Police Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York.

Motion to dispense with printing denied, without prejudice to a renewal thereof upon a proper showing of the jurisdiction of this court and upon a proper affidavit of merit. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
### §4514. Dairy reports

The Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry the following reports:

(1) Not later than July 1, 1984, a report on the effect of applying, nationally, standards similar to the current California standards for fluid milk products in their final consumer form, as they would relate to—

(A) consumer acceptance, overall consumer consumption trends, and total per capita consumption;

(B) nutritional augmentation, particularly for young and older Americans;

(C) implementing improved interagency enforcement of minimum standards to prevent consumer fraud and deception;

(D) multiple component pricing for producer milk;

(E) reduced Commodity Credit Corporation purchases;

(F) consistency of product quality throughout the year and between marketing regions of the United States; and

(G) consumer prices.

(2) Not later than December 31, 1984, a report on (A) recommendations for changes in the application of the parity formula to milk so as to make the formula more consistent with modern production methods and with special attention to the cost of producing milk as a result of changes in productivity, and (B) the feasibility of imposing a limitation on the total amount of payments and other assistance a producer of milk may receive during a year under section 1446(d) of this title.

(3) Not later than April 15, 1985, a report on the effectiveness of the paid diversion program carried out under section 1446(d) of this title.

(4) Not later than July 1, 1985, and July 1 of each year after the date of enactment of this title,1 an annual report describing activities conducted under the dairy products promotion and research order issued under subtitle B of title I of this Act [7 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.], and accounting for the receipt and disbursement of all funds received by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board under such order including an independent analysis of the effectiveness of the program.

(Pub. L. 98–180, title III, §301, Nov. 29, 1983, 97 Stat. 1150.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of enactment of this title, referred to in par. (4), means the date of enactment of title III of Pub. L. 98–180, which was approved Nov. 29, 1983.

Subtitle B of title I of this Act, referred to in par. (4), is subtitle B (§§110–122) of title I of Pub. L. 98–180, which is classified generally to this subchapter. For complete classification of subtitle B to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of Pub. L. 98–180, known as the Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1983, and not as part of title I of Pub. L. 98–180, known as the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983, subtitle B of which comprises this subchapter.

1 See References in Text note below.
---

---

Exhibit 14(a)2

|Chaikin, Cohen, Rubin & Gilboa.                                                                                                          
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                         
|Atidim Technology Park, Bldg. 4,
P.O.B. 58143 Tel-Aviv 61580, IsraelTel: 972-3-6489858 Fax: 972-3-6489946
E-mail: accounting@ccrcpa.co.il
|                                                                                                                                         
|Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)                                                                                                      

CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the inclusion in
the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Scailex Corporation Ltd. (Scailex) for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the Annual Report), and to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Scailex on Form S-8
(Registration No. 33-34233, Registration No. 33-46861, Registration No. 33-87614,
Registration No. 33-97622, Registration No. 33-97624 and Registration No. 33-39364), of
our Report dated March 2, 2005, with respect to the financial statements of Objet
Geometries Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2004.

| | Sincerely Yours,
/s/ Chaikin, Cohen, Rubin & GilboaChaikin, Cohen, Rubin & Gilboa
Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tel-Aviv, Israel
June 18, 2007



---

---
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-2423WA

_____________

Arkansas Emergency Transport LLC, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

City of Texarkana, Arkansas, * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Defendant, *

__________________ * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Lifenet, Inc., *

*

Movant-Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: December 10, 1997

Filed: December 17, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Lifenet, Inc. appeals the district court's order denying Lifenet's motion for

intervention. Lifenet's appeal is nothing more than an extension of Lifenet's Johnnycome-lately attempt to intervene after Lifenet's litigation strategy to stay out of this case

to bolster the City of Texarkana's argument that Arkansas Emergency Transport's

complaint should be dismissed because Lifenet was a necessary party backfired when
-2-

the district court resolved the issue of the City's liability in Arkansas Emergency

Transport's favor. We review the district court's ruling on the timeliness of a motion

to intervene as a matter of right under a well-established standard, and we are satisfied

the district court correctly applied the controlling law. We thus affirm on the basis of

the district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE TITAN CORPORATION'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX
MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,314
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     18,732
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,214
<PP&E>                                          61,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 189,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,598
<BONDS>                                         32,303
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,195
<COMMON>                                           283
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,253
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   189,352
<SALES>                                        108,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               108,783
<CGS>                                           84,681
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,488
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,802
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,633
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,169
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,169
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
<FN>
<F1>Due to the use of condensed financial statements for interim reporting, this
information is not compiled on a quarterly basis.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER IV—RURAL TELEPHONE BANK
#### KOPP v. WHITE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 16, 1903.)

Action by Robert Kopp against George W. White.

No opinion. Motion dismissed.