alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Leshkow v. Temenoff

*Adam A. Gorski,*for plaintiff.

*Gerald J. Weber,*for defendant.

November 6, 1953.

Laub, J.,

This is a petition to set aside a judgment of non pros.

On March 31, 1953, plaintiff secured a judgment in the amount of $117.70 against defendant in an alderman’s court in the City of Erie. An appeal was taken by defendant to this court and, on April 13, 1953, plaintiff was notified of the appeal by registered mail and that he would suffer a judgment of non pros if he did not file his complaint within 15 days.

Within three days plaintiff retained the services of attorney George Schroeck and paid him a retaining fee. The matter rested without action until April 29, 1953, when counsel for defendant entered judgment of non pros. On August 31,1953, plaintiff secured new counsel, who then presented the petition which now occupies our attention.

As a general rule we are hesitant about setting aside judgments of *non pros,*believing that there must be some end to litigation and that defendants must be afforded some protection against delay. We have, however, upon several occasions found it necessary to set *360aside such judgments where they have been entered as a result of the negligence of counsel. We have done this in the belief that a diligent litigant ought not to be punished by the incompetence of his counsel unless the party, himself, has been at fault in the matter. In the present case, plaintiff was reasonably diligent in seeking counsel initially.

Since more than three months elapsed subsequent to the time plaintiff hired Schroeck and the time plaintiff made further inquiry and secured new counsel, he has not exhibited the diligence required of him, although this defect is mitigated somewhat by his prompt engagement of counsel after the appeal was taken. Plaintiff may be said to be somewhat at fault in delaying engagement of new counsel and should be required to bear some share of the responsibility. This can equitably be accomplished by the order we are about to make. The statute of limitations has not expired and therefore, even though we were to sustain defendant’s position, plaintiff could, by paying the costs in this case, initiate a new action. It is therefore our feeling that plaintiff may have the judgment stricken off but he must also pay all accrued costs to date. Defendant would at least be entitled to this much if we allowed the judgment to remain.

*Order*

And now, to wit, November 6, 1953, the rule entered August 31,1953, to show cause why judgment of non pros should not be stricken off is discharged unless plaintiff pay all accrued costs to date within 15 days. Upon the payment of all such costs as herein prescribed and upon the filing of a complaint within that time, the judgment is stricken off. Costs paid m accordance with this order shall not be subject to recovery by plaintiff at the termination of the litigation whatever its result.
#### Dan OLIVER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-6103.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 30, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

Dan Oliver, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Dan Oliver seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Oliver v. Braxton,*No. CA-01-349 AM (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 8, 2001 & entered Nov. 9, 2001). Oliver’s motion for return of legal documents is denied. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1290

AN ACT

To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline under

the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction

of, a hydroelectric project in Oregon, and for other purposes.

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

•HR 1290 EH

1 SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF PERMIT EXTENSION

2 DEADLINE.

3 Notwithstanding the expiration of the permit and

4 notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of

5 the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would other6 wise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

7 project numbered 7829, the Commission shall, at the re8 quest of the licensee for the project, reinstate the permit

9 effective May 23, 1993, and extend the time period during

10 which the licensee is required to commence the construc11 tion of the project so as to terminate on May 25, 1999.

Passed the House of Representatives November 13,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1290

AN ACT

To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline

egon, and for other purposes.construction of, a hydroelectric project in Orunder the Federal Power Act applicable to the
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Sison’s Travel to Seattle, Washington

# 									Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Sison’s Travel to Seattle, Washington							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 3, 2023

Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Michele Sison will travel to Seattle, Washington, February 6-7, 2023, to highlight America’s multilateral leadership and to discuss the many ways in which that leadership reflects U.S. values of democracy and human rights and contributes to our country’s safety, security, and prosperity.  During her visit, the Assistant Secretary will headline events hosted by the World Affairs Council of Seattle and meet with students at the University of Washington and Seattle University to discuss today’s shared global challenges, as well as career opportunities at the Department of State and in international organizations.

For updates, follow @State_IO on Twitter.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of International Organization AffairsDemocracyHuman RightsOffice of Public LiaisonOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial Domestic TravelSecurityWashington

Back to Top
§ 5.16 When will Treasury entities refer Treasury debts to the Department of Justice? ( a ) *Compromise or suspension or termination of collection activity.* Treasury entities shall refer Treasury debts having a principal balance over $100,000, or such higher amount as authorized by the Attorney General, to the Department of Justice for approval of any compromise of a debt or suspension or termination of collection activity. *See* §§ 5.7 and 5.8 of this part; 31 CFR 902.1; 31 CFR 903.1.
( b ) *Litigation.* Treasury entities shall promptly refer to the Department of Justice for litigation delinquent Treasury debts on which aggressive collection activity has been taken in accordance with this part and that should not be compromised, and on which collection activity should not be suspended or terminated. See 31 CFR part 904. Treasury entities may authorize the Financial Management Service to refer to the Department of Justice for litigation those delinquent Treasury debts that have been transferred to the Financial Management Service under § 5.9 of this part.
EXHIBIT 31.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Michael Schumacher, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Birch Branch, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  May 22, 2006


 /s/ Michael Schumacher
-----------------------------------------
Michael Schumacher
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive
 Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
 Director
WWW.GEN-4.ORG

Very High Temperature 

Reactor (VHTR)

The Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR) is a graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactor 

with a once-through uranium 

fuel cycle. The VHTR system 

is designed to be a high-efficiency system that can supply 

process heat to a broad spectrum of high-temperature and 

energy-intensive, nonelectric 

processes. The system may incorporate electricity generating 

equipment to meet cogeneration needs. The system also has 

the flexibility to adopt uranium/

plutonium fuel cycles and offer 

enhanced waste minimization. 

Thus, the VHTR offers a broad 

The VHTR offers a broad range 

of process heat applications 

and an option for highefficiency electricity 

production.

range of process heat applications and an option for high-efficiency electricity production, 

while retaining the desirable 

safety characteristics offered by 

modular high-temperature gascooled reactors. The reference 

reactor is a 600 MWth core 

connected to an intermediate 

heat exchanger for the delivery 

07-GA50277-03

of process heat. The reactor 

core can be a prismatic block 

core such as the operating 

Japanese HTTR, or a pebblebed core such as the operating 

Chinese HTR-10. For hydrogen 

production, the system supplies 

heat that could be used efficiently by the thermochemical 

sulfur-iodine process.

For more information: Ralph Bennett • 208-526-7708 • Ralph.Bennett@inl.gov

Heat

Exchanger

Control

Rods

Helium

Coolant

Graphite

Reflector

Graphite

Reactor

Core

Blower

Pump

Oxygen

Heat Sink

Hydrogen

Water

Hydrogen

Production Plant

Reactor
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

263) ll-K- (I) -76 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:57AM Sheet 263 of 325 
P.2 

/AVjgj 

II-K-(I)-76 

1982 ANNUAL ENERGY OUTLOOK WITH PROJECTIONS TO 1990 

DOE/Energy Information Administration 

1982 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I;)-7*
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Acting Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center Bray’s Trip to Germany

# 									Acting Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center Bray’s Trip to Germany							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

October 11, 2022

Acting Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center Leah Bray will travel to Berlin and Stuttgart, Germany, from October 12 to 14. In Berlin, acting Coordinator Bray will represent the United States at the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism (G7 RRM) State Secretary Conference. She will consult with the heads of other G7 delegations on trends in foreign-sponsored propaganda and disinformation and how to improve collective resiliency against these threats.  Prior to the G7 RRM meeting, acting Coordinator Bray will meet with U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) leadership in Stuttgart to synchronize U.S. efforts on regional issues of concern.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsGermanyGlobal Engagement CenterOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International Travel

Back to Top
# Euroopan unionin C 40/2012

| | ISSN 1977-1053
  doi:10.3000/19771053.C_2012.040.fin |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 40 |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 55. vuosikerta11. helmikuu 2012 |

ISSN 1977-1053

doi:10.3000/19771053.C_2012.040.fin

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 40

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

55. vuosikerta11. helmikuu 2012

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Ilmoitukset |
| | HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT |
| | Euroopan parlamentti |
| 2012/C 040/01 | Päätös | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

V   Ilmoitukset

HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT

Euroopan parlamentti

2012/C 040/01

Päätös

1

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

V Ilmoitukset

HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT

Euroopan parlamentti

| 11.2.2012 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | C 40/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

C 40/1

---

PÄÄTÖS

2012/C 40/01

EUROOPAN PARLAMENTIN PÄÄSIHTEERI, joka

ottaa huomioon Euroopan unionin virkamiehiin sovellettavat henkilöstösäännöt ja näiden yhteisöjen muuta henkilöstöä koskevat palvelussuhteen ehdot, jotka vahvistettiin neuvoston asetuksella (ETY, Euratom, EHTY) N:o 259/68 ja joita on viimeksi muutettu neuvoston asetuksella (EY, Euratom) N:o 723/2004, ja erityisesti näiden sääntöjen 30 artiklan,

ottaa huomioon nimittävän viranomaisen määräämisestä tehdyn puhemiehistön päätöksen, jota on viimeksi muutettu 26. lokakuuta 2004,

ottaa huomioon kilpailu- ja palvelukseenottoilmoitukset:

PE/96/A, PE/97/A, A/94, A/95, A/96, AD/1/08, AD/3/08, AD/4/08, PE/99/S, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/109/S, B/174, B/175, B/176, C/348, AST/1/2005, AST/1/2006, AST/5/2008, PE/69/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S,

ottaa huomioon pariteettikomitean kokouksessaan 26. lokakuuta 2011 antaman lausunnon,

ON PÄÄTTÄNYT SEURAAVAA:

Ainoa artikla

Kilpailujen ja palvelukseen ottamista varten laadittujen varallaololuetteloiden

PE/96/A, PE/97/A, A/94, A/95, A/96, AD/1/08, AD/3/08, AD/4/08, PE/99/S, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/109/S, B/174, B/175, B/176, C/348, AST/1/2005, AST/1/2006, AST/5/2008, PE/69/S, PE/96/S ja PE/110/S

voimassaoloa jatketaan 31. joulukuuta 2012 asti.

Tehty Luxemburgissa 18 päivänä joulukuuta 2011.

Klaus WELLE

Pääsihteeri

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Additional Measures Against the Russian Financial System

# 									Additional Measures Against the Russian Financial System							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

February 28, 2022

In coordination with our allies and partners, the United States is taking further measures today against the Russian financial system in response to Russia’s continuing premeditated war against Ukraine.  Unwavering in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, we will continue to act with our allies and partners in imposing costs on Russia if it continues its war of choice.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has prohibited any U.S. person from conducting any transaction involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, or the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. In addition, OFAC imposed blocking sanctions on the Russian Direct Investment Fund, a known slush fund for President Putin and his inner circle, two of its subsidiaries, and CEO Kirill Dmitriev.

We took today’s actions to impair Russia’s ability to use its international reserves in ways that undermine the impact of our sanctions, as well as to prevent Russia from accessing its wealth fund for use in its ongoing war against Ukraine.

The United States will continue to coordinate closely with our partners and allies to impose severe consequences on Russia for its war against Ukraine.  We share with our partners and allies unity of purpose, resolve, and determination to hold Russia to account for its aggression, particularly those responsible for this war of choice.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaSanctionsThe Secretary of StateUkraine

Back to Top
#### Tillman G. FARR, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard ANDERSON, CUS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-35193.

D.C. No. CV-96-00861-MJP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002 *.

Decided June 17, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Farr’s request for oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Tillman G. Farr, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary judgment de novo, *Hamilton v. Endell,*981 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

Defendants Anderson and Brock were entitled to qualified immunity on the deliberate indifference to medical need claim because the evidence did not set forth a constitutional violation. *See Saucier v. Katz,*533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). With respect to the deliberate indifference claim against defendant Palmer, Farr’s allegation of injury on November 17, 1995 did not create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to overcome defendants’ medical evidence showing that his wound healed normally without any indication of trauma. *See Hamilton,*981 F.2d at 1066.

Because Washington had an adequate post-deprivation remedy for loss of property, *see*Wash. Rev.Code §§ 4.92.100, 4.92.110; *Coulter v. State,*93 Wash.2d 205, 608 P.2d 261, 263 (1980) (en banc), the district court properly determined that Farr’s due process claims did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. *See Parrott v. Taylor,*451 U.S. 527, 543, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), *overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams,*474 U.S. 327, 330-31, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); *Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984).

We reject Farr’s contention that, on remand from this court, the district court was bound by the September 16, 1997 report and recommendation issued by the magistrate judge prior to the first appeal. That report and recommendation does not constitute the law of the case because the district court never adopted it. *Cf. United States v. Alexander,*106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997) (stating law of the case doctrine applies only to issues already decided by the same or a higher court). Therefore, the district court properly reconsidered summary judgment on remand.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Certification of CEO Pursuant to


Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a‐14 and 15d‐14


as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 302 of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002


I, Ruben Mendoza, certify that:


1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10‐K of Foundation Building Materials, Inc.;


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 annual 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; and


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 function):


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.


Date: March 27, 2017


/s/ Ruben MendozaRuben MendozaPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(S20) €-8L [N SON

UNITED STATES BATHYMETRIC MAP HUDSON CANYON

ro
“Ht ae

Pee c a
TEST MS ETT
;

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAP am, HUDSON CANYON

Mors levi index

UNITED STATES OEPARIMENT OF COMMERCE -
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOS?}ERIC ADMINISTRATION “ . - ‘] NOS NJ 18:3{0CS)
NATIONAL OCEAN Sulevey H
Losi OCANCH TAGEAM
Peaeabesstabinges, D6. “< - oan sagen -
UNITED STANES DEPARTMENT OF THE ineteMom - = Ho

ust bas hae a BUREAU OF (AND MANAGEMENT

aioe sme

onde 1.286.000