alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALFRED CLEMMONS,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7041

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 08-3584, Judge William P. 

Greene, Jr.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

Before PROST, O'MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to dismiss 

this appeal as untimely. The appellant has not responded.

Case: 14-7041 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2014
2 CLEMMONS v. SHINSEKI

On July 8, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) entered judgment 

in Alfred Clemmons’s case. The Veterans Court received 

Clemmons’s notice of appeal on January 2, 2014, more 

than 3 years after the date of judgment. 

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by 

the Veterans Court within 60 days of the entry of judgment. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(1). Like appeals from district courts, the 

statutorily prescribed time for filing appeals from the 

Veterans Court to this court is mandatory and jurisdictional. See Wagner v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013); see also Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 

1197, 1204-05 (2011) (indicating jurisdictional restrictions 

on the time for taking an appeal under section 

7292(a)). Accordingly, even in circumstances in which it 

would be equitable to do so, this court is without authority to waive the deadline for filing an appeal to this court 

from the Veterans Court. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 

205, 214 (2007). 

Because Clemmons’s appeal was filed outside of the 

statutory deadline for taking an appeal to this court, we 

must dismiss the appeal. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 27, 2014

s25

Case: 14-7041 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Paixao, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 672]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered January 23, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court improperly impeded his ability to present his defense by curtailing his cross-*678examination of prosecution witnesses and limiting his summation. We disagree. The trial court has broad discretion to limit cross-examination when questions are repetitive, irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or threaten to mislead the jury *(see Delaware v Van Arsdall,*475 US 673, 679 [1986]; *People v Aska,*91 NY2d 979, 981 [1998]; *People v Schwartzman,*24 NY2d 241, 245 [1969], *cert denied*396 US 846 [1969]; *People v Messa,*299 AD2d 495, 496 [2002]; *People v Kinard,*215 AD2d 591 [1995]; *People v Ashner,*190 AD2d 238, 246 [1993]; *People v Martinez,*177 AD2d 600, 601 [1991]). The trial court providently exercised its discretion in this case. Moreover, the trial court properly excluded evidence of third-party culpability that was purely speculative in nature *(see People v Schulz,*4 NY3d 521 [2005]; *People v Primo,*96 NY2d 351 [2001]). The trial court also correctly limited the defense summation to matters of evidence that were properly adduced at trial *(see People v Romano,*301 AD2d 666, 667 [2003]). It properly sustained the People’s objections to defense summation comments that were based on speculation and that violated the trial court’s evidentiary rulings *(see People v Bistonath,*216 AD2d 478, 479 [1995]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor’s objections and the trial court’s rulings violated his constitutional rights *(see People v Angelo,*88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; *People v Tucker,*21 AD3d 387 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 833 [2005]). Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
§ 51.11 Applicability date. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, §§ 51.1 through 51.10 apply on and after July 28, 2014.
( b ) Section 51.2(e)(3) applies on and after July 24, 2017.
[T.D. 9684, 79 FR 43645, July 28, 2014, as amended by T.D. 9823, 82 FR 34612, July 26, 2017]
# KA N SA S

OFFIC E O F TH E GOVERNO R 

### S I 0-100920-01 1 cPARJMEN T O F

- •K3PORTATiOi'J,A/1arJ c Parkinson , Governo r

lUiM O Vi'i G r' H -l i P 2 : 5 n www.governor.ks.go v Septembe r

15,201 0 Secretary Ra y LaHoo d U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0

\ Dea

r Secretary LaHood : I a mwritin g t o urg e yo u to favorabl y conside r Manhattan Regiona l Airport' s recen t gran t applicatio n unde r

th e Smal l Community Ai r Servic e Developmen t

program . I f

awarded , thes e fund s wil l pla y a

n importan t

rol e i n ensurin g that

north centra l Kansa s wil l continu e t o hav e acces s t o quality commercial ai r service . Th e Manhattan Regiona l Airport (MHK ) serve s agrowin g are ao f th e stat e that

i s hom e t o man y important Kansa s institutions . Kansa s Stat e University , an internationall y recognize dleade r i n animal healt

h an dfoo dsafet

y research , i s locate di n Manhattan . I n addition , th e regio n i s th e futur e hom e o f th e U.S . Departmen t

o f Homelan dSecurity' s Nationa l Bi o an dAgro-defens e Facility (NBAF) . Th e airpor t als o serve s th e need s o f

th e U.S . Arm y installatio n at For t Riley . Implementin g th e strategi c marketin g pla n thi s gran t wil l fun dwil l increas e th e numbe r o f peopl e i n th e regio n wh o us e MHK , ensurin g that th e curren t

servic e i s not

onl y self-sustaining , bu t worth y o f expansion . I n additio n i t wil l provid e th e are awith an importan t too l i n attractin g to p quality professional s t o th e university an dNBAF . Expandin g ai r

servic e t o th e regio n i s vital t o th e continue deconomi c growt h an ddevelopmen t i n north central Kansas . Fund s fromth e Smal l Community Ai r Servic e Developmen t

program wil l kee p MH K

aviabl e optio n for

th e futur e transportatio n need s o f

th e area . Thank you , GoyanotMai k

Paikinso n

cc : Susan Kiirlan d Pete r Va n Kure n Capito l Building , Roo m212S,Topeka,K S 66612-159 0 • (785)296-323 2 e-mail : govemor@k.s.go v Fax:(785)296-797 3 /
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.2
                                                                   ------------

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Deborah A. McLaughlin, is the Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Operating Officer of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. (the "Company"). This
statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of
the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2007 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

      1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
            78o(d)); 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 the dates and for the periods
            covered by the Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

DATE:  May 15, 2007                    /s/ Deborah A. McLaughlin
       -----------------------         ------------------------------------
                                       Deborah A. McLaughlin
                                       Executive Vice President
                                       Chief Financial Officer & Chief
                                       Operations Officer

                                      38
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7600

JEROME FRIERSON-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN, FCI-Estill; HEALTH SERVICE SUPERVISOR OF FCI-ESTILL; PA ALL UNKNOWN AT FCI-ESTILL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-2721-3-10BC) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Frierson-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 The magistrate judge properly construed the complaint as one filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 2 Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on October 7, 1998, the district court’s record discloses that it was entered on the docket sheet on October 8, 1998, which is the date we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, 79(a). 2 PER CURIAM: Jerome Frierson-Bey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil rights complaint. 1 We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’srecommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Frierson-Bey v. Warden , No. CA-97-2721-3-10BC (D.S.C. Oct. 8, 1998). 2 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
§ 48.4063-3 Other tax-free sales. For provisions relating to tax-free sales of articles referred to in section 4061, see: ( a ) Section 4221, relating to certain tax-free sales;
( b ) Section 4222, relating to registration; and
( c ) Section 4223, relating to special rules pertaining to further manufacture;
and the regulations thereunder contained in Subpart N of this part. [T.D. 7727, 28 FR 3633, Apr. 13, 1963. Redesignated by T.D. 7834, 47 FR 42344, Sept. 27, 1982]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      14,282,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              223,965,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                (9,653,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           343,088,000
<PP&E>                                      17,498,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (13,184,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             391,729,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      310,764,000
<BONDS>                                    137,610,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       238,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (67,931,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               391,729,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           227,017,000<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              211,317,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,117,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,584,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (7,001,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,020,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (8,063,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                               2,344,000            
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,719,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.24)
<FN>
<F1>Represents gross revenue which includes costs of certain services 
subcontracted to third parties and other reimbursable direct project costs, 
such as materials procured by the company on behalf of its customers. Gross 
revenue also includes equity in net income of unconsolidated subsidiaries for 
purpose of this schedule.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
TS-ASLT40/50 

Attachment #3

Pt. 1, Sec. B 

CAS Inventory Expert Service Reports and Chemical Structures of the New Chemical 

Substances 

The following page gives the CAS Inventory Expert Service (IES) Reports on the new 

chemical substances. The chemical structures of the compounds are also provided. 

4.1'

4.3'

4.5'

5.1'

5.3'

5.5'
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

134279 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff- Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices v SC: 134279 COA: 275367 Wayne CC: 05-009523-01 ALFONSO JERMAINE NELSON a/k/a JEROME ED WARD NELSON, Defendant- Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 2, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
www.gpo.gov

### §282m. Authority to vote for capital increases necessary to support economic restructuring in independent states of former Soviet Union

The United States Governor of the Corporation may vote in favor of any increase in the capital stock of the Corporation that may be needed to accommodate the requirements of the independent states of the former Soviet Union (as defined in section 5801 of this title).

(Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 788, §15, as added Pub. L. 102–511, title X, §1005, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3361.)
Attachment 2

Presentation Slides

Turndown and Cold Furnace Performance – Ultra Low NO X Process Heater Burners

R.T. Waibel, PhD, John Zink Co., LLC
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors and Management of

Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.:

 

We have examined management's assertion, included in theaccompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable ServicingCriteria, that Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company")complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission'sRegulation AB for the Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security Transactions - RegABPortfolio (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and for the yearthen ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii),1122(d)(3)(i) (C) & (D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which theCompany has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by itwith respect to the Platform. Exhibit C to management's assertion identifiesthe individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by managementas constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company'scompliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestationstandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company'scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other proceduresas we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination includedtesting of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise thePlatform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, anddetermining whether the Company processed those selected transactions andperformed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions andservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising fromerrors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may haveaffected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company duringthe period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Companycomplied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and forthe year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 22, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 300 Madison Avenue, New York,NY 10017*

*T: (646) 471 3000, F: (646) 471 8320, www.pwc.com/us*

* *
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1089 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1089

 To ensure that the acquisition of lands for inclusion in the National 
Forest System does not result in reduced property tax revenues for the 
            county in which the acquired lands are located.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 1995

 Mr. Cremeans introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that the acquisition of lands for inclusion in the National 
Forest System does not result in reduced property tax revenues for the 
            county in which the acquired lands are located.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIRED PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES IN CONNECTION WITH NATIONAL 
              FOREST SYSTEM ACQUISITIONS.

    (a) Property Tax Equivalency Payment.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture may not acquire (by 
purchase, exchange, or other method) any non-Federal land to be managed 
by the Secretary as part of the National Forest System unless the 
Secretary agrees to pay to the county in which the acquired land is 
located an annual property tax equivalency payment in the amount 
determined under subsection (b).
    (b) Amount of Payment.--For each acre of land for which the 
Secretary is required to make a property tax equivalency payment, the 
amount of the payment for a fiscal year shall be equal to the 
difference (but not less than zero) between--
            (1) the total amount of the property tax, as determined by 
        a tax assessment satisfactory to the Secretary, that would be 
        paid for such year with respect to the land if the land 
        remained in non-Federal ownership; and
            (2) the total amount of payments with respect to the land 
        for such year under chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code, 
        the sixth paragraph under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' in the 
        Act of May 23, 1908, and section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 
        (16 U.S.C. 500).
    (c) Exception for Certain Exchanges.--Subsection (a) shall not 
apply to the acquisition of land by exchange if the acquisition of the 
land does not increase the percentage of land in Federal ownership in 
the county in which the acquired lands are located.
    (d) Definition of County.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``county'' has the same meaning given the term ``unit of general local 
government'' in section 6901(2) of title 31, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 132

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Relating to the trial of Martin Pang for arson and felony

murder.

Whereas it is alleged that Martin Pang intentionally started

a warehouse fire in Seattle, Washington on January 5,

1995, that killed four firefighters;

Whereas shortly thereafter Martin Pang fled to Brazil from

where he was extradited to the United States on March

1, 1996;

Whereas the extradition decision of the Supreme Court of

Brazil states that Martin Pang should stand trial in the
2

HCON 132 RDS

United States only for arson and not for felony murder;

and

Whereas it is accepted international practice in extradition

cases for the executive authorities of the requested state

to grant consent for prosecution of offenses other than

those for which the fugitive was extradited: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that in

3 the interests of justice and furthering good relations be4 tween the United States and Brazil, the Government of

5 Brazil should grant its consent to prosecution of Martin

6 Pang for both arson and felony murder.

Passed the House of Representatives September 24,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stacy Beltre, Also Known as Steicy Beltre, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 305]

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J), rendered November 13, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

By waiving his right to appeal, defendant “elect[ed] to foreclose review” *(People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; *People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]) of the length of his lawful sentence. Were we to find that defendant’s argument is not foreclosed, we would find that defendant is not entitled, pursu*301ant to the amelioration doctrine of *People v Behlog*(74 NY2d 237 [1989]), to the benefit of the reduced penalty contained in the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) because he was sentenced before the statute’s effective date *(People v Walker,*81 NY2d 661, 666-667 [1993]). Moreover, the Legislature negated the amelioration doctrine and expressly provided that the provisions of the new law defendant relies upon apply only to crimes committed after its effective date *(People v Nelson,*21 AD3d 861 [2005]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.