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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1256

CHRISTINE FOWLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GENE L. ATLEY; ACME MARKETS, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-830-Y)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 9, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christine Fowler, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Mark Buxbaum, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Towson, Maryland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 granting

summary judgment for the Defendants in Plaintiff's civil diversity

action alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

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

district court. Fowler v. Atley, No. CA-93-830-Y (D. Md. Jan. 29,

1996). 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
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Cardosi, a.k.a. Cordosi, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Cardosi*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1206.]

(No. 97-688

Submitted March 3, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Suzanne M. Luthe,*Clark County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Noel Edward Kaech,*Clark County Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, *Jeffrey S. Sutton,*State Solicitor, *Simon B. Karas,*Deputy Chief Counsel, and *Alice Robinson-Bond,*Assistant Attorney General, urging affirmance for *amicus curiae,*Attorney General.

The certification of conflict is dismissed, *sua sponte,*as having been improvidently allowed.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Cook, J., dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to dismiss this case as improvidently allowed. I believe we should, in accordance with our rules, resolve the conflict between the evidentiary rulings in this case and in *State v. Black*(1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 724, 622 N.E.2d 1166.

The issue certified to this court by the Second District Court of Appeals is “[w]hether a finding pursuant to Evid.R. 601(A) that a child under ten years of age is incompetent to testify at trial makes that child’s testimony ‘not reasonably obtainable’ for purposes of Evid.R. 80[7](A)(2) under the standards set out in Evid.R. 807(B)(2) * * See *State v. Cordosi*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1494, 678 N.E.2d 1230.

In *Black,*the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying the state’s application to present hearsay testimony pursuant to Evid.R. 807, by reasoning that admissibility of testimony under 807(A)(2) based on the child’s testimony being “not reasonably obtainable” is not triggered where there is a finding that the child-victim is incompetent to testify at trial. 87 Ohio App.3d at 728-729, 622 N.E.2d at 1169.

By contrast, in Cardosi’s case the Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court admitting hearsay evidence of the child’s state*1207ments, stating that “[t]he condition of absence prescribed in [Evid.R. 807] * * * applies to any substantial impediment to the child’s appearance as a witness in the proceeding. Certainly a finding of incompetency does just that. Therefore, when a court finds that a child is not competent to be a witness her testimony is ‘not reasonably obtainable’ pursuant to Evid.R. 807(B)(2).” *State v. Cardosi*(Jan. 17,1997), Clark App. No. 95-CA-0126, unreported, 1997 WL 52924.

Because these two districts differ on the same legal point, this court should resolve that difference of opinion. Had we done so, my view would have been that the admissibility problem was properly analyzed by the *Black*court.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
**Exhibit 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

Alliance Bank, N.A. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alliance Financial Corporation and is a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States. 

Alliance Financial Capital Trust I is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alliance Financial Corporation and is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. 

Alliance Financial Capital Trust II is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alliance Financial Corporation and is organized under the laws of the State ofDelaware. 

Ladd’s Agency, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alliance Financial Corporation and is organized under the laws of theState of New York. 

Alliance Preferred Funding Corp. is a substantially wholly-owned subsidiary of Alliance Bank, N.A. and is organizedunder the laws of the State of Delaware. 

Alliance Leasing, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alliance Bank, N.A. and is organized underthe laws of the State of New York.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350**

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer of Enable IPC Corporation (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-QSB of the Company  for  the  quarter ended  December 31 , 2006 (the "Report") fully complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934   and  that  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company.

Date:February 13, 2007

/s/David A. Walker 

David A. Walker

 Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Linn Energy, LLC (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Kolja Rockov, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 C § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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.







Date:
      November 6, 2008
            By:
            /s/  Kolja
      RockovKolja
      RockovExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
Trustee Notice



 Exhibit 4.1 
 

 
 March 30, 2009 
 Mr. George Kubin 
 Vice President 
 Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company 
 222 South Riverside Plaza, 25th Floor 
 Chicago, IL 60606 
 Attention: Corporate Trust Administration 
 Fax: 312 537 1009 
 Subject: Hawker Beechcraft Acquisition Company LLC Senior PIK Election Note 
               dated March 26, 2007 
 Dear Mr. Kubin, 
 Pursuant to clause 1 of the Subject Note, we hereby notify you of our election to pay PIK interest for the entire amount of interest due for the interest period
beginning April 1, 2009. 
 Sincerely, 
 /s/ George M.
Sellew 
 George M. Sellew 
 Vice President and Treasurer

 Hawker Beechcraft Acquisition Company LLC 
 101 S. Webb Road

 Wichita, KS 67201-0085
Editorial Note on Part 3415
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3415 appear at 76 FR 4811, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3415.14 Proposal review. ( a ) All grant applications will be acknowledged. Prior to technical examination, a preliminary review will be made for responsiveness to the program solicitation (e.g., relationship of application to announced program area). Proposals that do not fall within the guidelines as stated in the program solicitation will be eliminated from competition and will be returned to the applicant.
( b ) All applications will be carefully reviewed by the Director or Administrator, qualified officers or employees of the Department, the respective peer review group, and *ad hoc* reviewers, as required. Written comments will be solicited from *ad hoc* reviewers when required, and individual written comments and in-depth discussions will be provided by peer review group members prior to recommending applications for funding. Applications will be ranked and support levels recommended within the limitation of total available funding for each research program area as announced in the program solicitation.
( c ) No awarding official will make a grant based upon an application covered by this part unless the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this part and unless said reviewers have made recommendations concerning the scientific merit and relevance to the program of such application.
( d ) Except to the extent otherwise provided by law, such recommendations are advisory only and are not binding on program officers or on the awarding officials of NIFA and ARS.
§ 3201.103 Gasoline fuel additives. ( a ) *Definition.* Chemical agents added to gasoline to increase octane levels, improve lubricity, and provide engine cleaning properties to gasoline-fired engines.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 92 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than June 11, 2014, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased gasoline fuel additives. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased gasoline fuel additives.
[78 FR 34872, June 11, 2013]
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by reference  in the
Registration  Statement  on form S-8 pertaining to the 1986 Stock
Option  Plan  of  IGENE  Biotechnology, Inc.  of our report dated
March 5, 1999,  with respect to the financial statements of IGENE
Biotechnology,  Inc.  included in the annual report (Form 10-KSB)
of IGENE  Biotechnology,  Inc.  for  the  year ended December 31,
1998.



                               BERENSON & COMPANY LLP

New York, NY
April 5, 2000

<PAGE>

                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by reference  in the
Registration  Statement  on form S-8 pertaining to the 1997 Stock
Option  Plan  of  IGENE  Biotechnology, Inc.  of our report dated
February 25, 2000,  with  respect  to the financial statements of
IGENE Biotechnology, Inc. included in the annual report (Form 10-
KSB) of IGENE Biotechnology, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
1999.


                               BERENSON & COMPANY LLP


New York, NY
April 5, 2000
Exhibit 10.2
 WebMD Health Corp.
111 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
 As of June 28, 2010
 Kevin Cameron
c/o WebMD Health Corp.
111 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
 Dear Kevin:
  1.
    
    Consequence of a Termination of Employment without Cause or Resignation with Good Reason
on the 2010 Option. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the applicable
Award Agreement, in the event of the termination of your employment by the Company without
Cause or by you for Good Reason (as such terms are defined in the Employment Agreement), (i)
the 2010 Option shall continue to vest and remain outstanding as if you were an employee of
the Company through the next vesting date following the termination of your employment and the
post termination exercise period will commence on such date and (ii) that portion of the 2010
Restricted Stock that would have vested on the next vesting date will vest on the date of
termination, in each case subject to the acknowledgment referred to in Section 4.7 of the
Employment Agreement becoming effective and continued compliance with Sections 1.3  1.5 of
the Employment Agreement).
 2.
    
    Impact of a Change in Control of the Company on the Option and Restricted Stock.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the applicable




---



##### 



Award Agreement, in the event of the occurrence of a Change in Control (as defined in
Section 4.5 of the Employment Agreement), you may resign without Good Reason at any time
after the six month anniversary of such Change in Control upon thirty days prior written
notice and (i) the 2010 Option shall continue to vest and remain outstanding through the
remainder of the original 10 year term as if you remained in the employ of the Company and
(ii) the 2010 Restricted Stock shall be deemed fully vested on the date of termination, in
each case subject to the acknowledgment referred to in Section 4.7 of the Employment
Agreement becoming effective and continued compliance with Sections 1.3  1.5 of the
Employment Agreement). In the event that your employment is terminated without Cause or
for Good Reason on or following a Change in Control of the Company, the 2010 Option and the
2010 Restricted Stock shall be treated in the manner described in the preceding sentence
(subject to the conditions specified).
  WEBMD HEALTH CORP.By:
    /s/ Lewis H. LeicherLewis H. LeicherSenior Vice President  /s/ Kevin Cameron
 2
9.104-5 Representation and certifications

regarding responsibility matters.

(a) When an offeror provides an affirmative response in paragraph (a)(1) of the provision at

52.209-5, Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters, or paragraph (h) of provision 52.212-3, the

contracting officer shall-

(1) Promptly, upon receipt of offers, request such additional information from the offeror as the

offeror deems necessary in order to demonstrate the offeror’s responsibility to the contracting

officer (but see 9.405); and

(2) Notify, prior to proceeding with award, in accordance with agency procedures (see 9.406-3(a)

and 9.407-3(a)), the agency official responsible for initiating debarment or suspension action, where

an offeror indicates the existence of an indictment, charge, conviction, or civil judgment, or Federal

tax delinquency in an amount that exceeds $10,000.

(b) The provision at 52.209-11, Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability

or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law, implements sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) (and similar

provisions in subsequent appropriations acts). When an offeror provides an affirmative response in

paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of the provision at 52.209-11 or paragraph (q)(2)(i) or (ii) of provision

52.212-3, the contracting officer shall–

(1) Promptly, upon receipt of offers, request such additional information from the offeror as the

offeror deems necessary in order to demonstrate the offeror's responsibility to the contracting

officer (but see 9.405);

(2) Notify, in accordance with agency procedures (see 9.406-3(a) and 9.407-3(a)), the agency official

responsible for initiating debarment or suspension action; and

(3) Not award to the corporation unless an agency suspending or debarring official has considered

suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or

debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

(c) If the provision at 52.209-12, Certification Regarding Tax Matters, is applicable (see 9.104-7(e)),

then the contracting officer shall not award any contract in an amount greater than $5.5 million,

unless the offeror affirmatively certified in its offer, as required by paragraph (b)(1), (2), and (3) of

the provision.

(d) Offerors who do not furnish the representation or certifications or such information as may be

requested by the contracting officer shall be given an opportunity to remedy the deficiency. Failure

to furnish the representation or certifications or such information may render the offeror

nonresponsible.

Parent topic: 9.104 Standards.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2211 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2211

      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Fluorobenzene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2006

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Fluorobenzene.

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

SECTION 1. FLUOROBENZENE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.05 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Fluorobenzene) is amended in 
the effective period column by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting 
``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
      OF
      2002







I,
      Adam
      R. Cegielski, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
      of
      Konigsberg Corporation on Form 10-QSB/A for the fiscal quarter ended December
      31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
      10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
      results of operations of Konigsberg Corporation.





Date:
      April 20, 2007





By:
      /s/ Adam R. Cegielski


Adam
      R.
      Cegielski,


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Principal
      Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                 $   761,650
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            4,594,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         5,847,541
<PP&E>                                  21,593,384
<DEPRECIATION>                          15,500,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          12,321,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    4,348,764
<BONDS>                                    882,407
<COMMON>                                13,883,965
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                              (8,518,321)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            12,321,883 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        21,621,572
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           23,714,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (69,250)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           257,431
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (2,281,415)
<INCOME-TAX>                               132,267
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (2,413,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                            (2,413,682)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.52)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

J.C.

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:20-cv-283-AW-MAF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

OFFICER JIMMY HIGHSMITH;

WARDEN T.A. JONES;

WARDEN CRAIG COIL;

SIS OFFICER GEOFFREY BROWN;

OFFICER MANUEL PULIDO; AND

NAKAMOTO GROUP, INC.

Defendants.

______________________________/

AMENDED MEDIATION REPORT

The parties to the above cause submitted their issues to mediation on March 25, 2022. All 

issues have been resolved regarding the claims against the United States of America and 

Defendants T.A. Jones, Craig Coil, Geoffrey Brown, Manuel Pulido and Ronald Proffitt. All 

other claims remain pending.

/s/ Charles Dodson

CHARLES DODSON

Florida Bar No. 228931

O’STEEN & O’STEEN, P.L.

2900 East Park Ave.

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Email: chasdod@aol.com

(850) 877-1028

Mediator

Case 4:20-cv-00283-AW-MAF Document 80 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been

served by electronic email via the CM/ECF System to all counsel of record, on this 30th day of 

March, 2022.

/s/ Charles Dodson

Attorney

Case 4:20-cv-00283-AW-MAF Document 80 Filed 03/30/22 Page 2 of 2
§ 400.653 Determining crops of economic significance. To be eligible for certain other program benefits under § 400.655 the following conditions will apply with respect to crops of economic significance if the producer does not execute a waiver of any eligibility for emergency crop loss assistance in connection with the crop. ( a ) If a producer planted a crop of economic significance in the preceding crop year, and does not intend to plant the same crop in the present crop year, the producer does not have to obtain insurance coverage or execute a waiver of any eligibility for emergency crop loss assistance in connection with the crop in the present crop year to comply with the linkage requirements. However, if the producer later decides to plant that crop, the producer will be unable to obtain insurance after the sales closing date and must execute a waiver of any eligibility for emergency crop loss assistance in connection with the crop to be eligible for benefits as specified in § 400.655. Failure to execute such a waiver will require the producer to refund any benefits already received under a program specified in § 400.655.
( b ) The producer is initially responsible to determine the crops of economic significance in the county. The insurance provider may assist the producer in making these initial determinations. However, these determinations will not be binding on the insurance provider. To determine the percentage value of each crop: ( 1 ) Multiply the acres planted to the crop times the producer's share, times the approved yield, and times the price;
( 2 ) Add the values of all crops grown by the producer (in the county); and
( 3 ) Divide the value of the specific crop by the result of paragraph (b)(2).
( c ) The producer may use the type of price, such as the current local market price, futures price, established price, highest amount of insurance, etc., for the price when calculating the value of each crop, provided that the producer uses the same type of price for all crops in the county.
( d ) The producer may be required to justify the calculation and provide adequate records to enable the insurance provider to verify whether a crop is of economic significance.
[61 FR 42975, Aug. 20, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 40742, July 28, 1999]