alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-7-2007

Arnold v. Comm of PA Transp

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-5037

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Arnold v. Comm of PA Transp" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1393.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1393
1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 March 2, 2007

Nos. 05-5037 & 05-5227

 AUGUST W. ARNOLD

 v.

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al

 

 Michael Baker Corporation, Appellant in 05-5037

 Tribune Review Publishing Company, Intervenor/Appellant in 05-5227

 

 ( D. C. No.03-cv-638 )

PRESENT: SMITH, ROTH, Circuit Judges and YOHN*, District Judge

 

 Letter Motion by Tribune Review Publishing, Intervenor/Appellant in No. 05-5227

 to Motion to Amend the Opinion.

 

 Carolyn Hicks, Case Manager

267-299-4926

Answer due 3/12/07.

*Hon. William H. Yohn Jr., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvanina. 

 O R D E R 

The foregoing Letter Motion by Tribune Review Publishing, Intervenor/Appellant in No. 05-5227 

 to Motion to Amend the Opinion is GRANTED. Because the names of counsel were inadvertently switched, it

is further ORDERED that the Opinion filed February 20, 2007 shall be AMENDED as follows: 

The designation of counsel for the parties shall be amended as follows:

Counsel for Appellant/Cross Appellee is :

Kim M. Watterson (Argued)

Efrem M. Grail

Joseph F. Rodkey, Jr.

Reed Smith LLP

435 Sixth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219
2

Counsel for Appellee/Cross Appellant is:

Ronald D. Barber (Argued)

H. Yale Gutnick

Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Potter, P.C.

Four Gateway Center, Suite 2200

444 Liberty Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

By the Court,

 /s/ D. Brooks Smith 

Circuit Judge

Dated: March 7, 2006

CH/cc: Ronald D. Barber, Esq.

 Efrem M. Grail, Esq.

 Kim M. Watterson, Esq.
IB

Union Calendar No. 390

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3378

[Report No. 104–742, Part I]

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to extend the demonstration program for direct billing of Medicare, Medicaid, and other third

party payors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 1996

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

AUGUST 1, 1996

Additional sponsor: Mr. Montgomery

AUGUST 1, 1996

Reported from the Committee on Resources

AUGUST 1, 1996

Committee on Commerce discharged; committed to the Committee of the

Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to extend the demonstration program for direct billing of

Medicare, Medicaid, and other third party payors.
2

•HR 3378 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN DEMONSTRATION

4 PROGRAM.

5 Section 405(c)(2) of the Indian Health Care Improve6 ment Act (25 U.S.C. 1645(c)(2)) is amended by striking

7 ‘‘September 30, 1996’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Sep8 tember 30, 1998’’.

Union Calendar No. 390

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3378

[Report No. 104–742, Part I]

A BILL

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement

third party payors.rect billing of Medicare, Medicaid, and otherAct to extend the demonstration program for diAUGUST 1, 1996

Committee on Commerce discharged; committed to the

Union and ordered to be printedCommittee of the Whole House on the State of the
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Inaugural Meeting of the Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee

# 									Inaugural Meeting of the Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 18, 2022

Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Jose W. Fernandez hosted the inaugural meeting of the Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee (CERAC), a new private sector advisory group, on March 15.

The 15 CERAC member entities represent a range of sectors – including automotive; mining and processing; battery manufacturing; recycling; traceability; mining standards; and mineral investments – and will advise the Department of State’s Bureau of Energy Resources on strategies, programs, and policies related to clean energy mineral supply chains.

Through Executive Order 14017, America’s Supply Chains, and a range of other initiatives, the Biden-Harris Administration is taking an action-based approach to bolstering supply chains key to U.S. economic interests and – in the case of minerals for clean technologies – U.S. climate objectives.  Private sector engagement and partnership is vital to these efforts, and CERAC will strengthen the Department of State’s robust engagement with private sector entities working in the critical minerals space.

For media inquiries, please contact ENR-PD-Clearances@state.gov.

Tags

Bureau of Energy ResourcesEnergyOffice of the SpokespersonUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment

Back to Top
# C_2006086EN.01001802.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/18

---

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

(Case C-89/06)

(2006/C 86/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by António Caeiros and Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 2003/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 2003/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that directive;

1

| — | declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC;

| — | order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive 2003/30 expired on 31 December 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 123 of 17.5.2003, p. 42.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     The audits referred to in our report dated March 28, 2001, included the
related consolidated financial statement schedule as listed in Item 14(a)(2) for
the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, included herein. The consolidated
financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the consolidated financial
statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such consolidated
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all
material respects, the information set forth therein.

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-40486), (Form S-8 No. 333-94361), (Form S-3 No. 333-51107) and
(Form S-3 No. 333-02129) of America West Holdings Corporation of our report
dated March 28, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of America West
Holdings Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders' equity and
comprehensive income (loss) for each of the years in the two-year period ended
December 31, 2000, and the related consolidated financial statement schedule,
which report appears in the December 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K of
America West Holdings Corporation.


KPMG LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
March 27, 2002


                                      112
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph HAMILTON and Frances M. Harvey.

No. 63516.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1979.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1979.

Bernard Jack Usprich, New Orleans, for Frances M. Harvey.

Larry Williams, New Orleans, for Joseph Hamilton.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Thomas Chester, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Joseph Hamilton and Frances M. Harvey were jointly charged by grand jury indictment with possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of La.R.S. 40:966. On December 8, 1977, after trial before a jury of twelve persons, each defendant was found guilty as charged. Subsequently they were sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor. Motions to appeal the convictions and sentences were filed on behalf of both defendants.

While the appeal was pending, defendant Hamilton died. Thus the prosecution against him is abated. *State v. Ferina,*351 So.2d 1200 (La.1977); *State v. Morris,*328 So.2d 65 (La.1976). With respect to defendant Harvey, we have carefully reviewed the four assignments of error urged on her behalf and find that they do not form the basis for a reversal of her conviction and sentence.

Accordingly, as to defendant Hamilton, the appeal is dismissed, the judgment of conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the indictment. As to defendant Harvey, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Fidel J. QUINTANA, M.D., Appellant, v. Carmelina S. CARTER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Luis Buena-Ventura Sing-Mirabel, Appellee.

No. 80-270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 9, 1980.

Robinson & Greenberg and Daniel K. Bandklayder and Barry N. Greenberg, Miami, for appellant.

*1233Broad & Cassel and Patricia Lebow, Bay Harbor Island, Schwartz, Klein & Stein-hardt and Jay S. Weiss, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Casas v. Rosell,*359 So.2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO.  2-05-420-CV

RICK BEARD	APPELLANT

	V.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, AS TRUSTEE	APPELLEE

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

	FROM JUSTICE OF THE PEACE PCT. 8 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Rick Beard attempts to appeal from a justice court’s final judgment in a forcible entry and detainer case.  An appeal from such a judgment must be taken in the county court of the county in which the judgment is rendered.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 749.  On May 25, 2006, this court notified Appellant that it was concerned that it lacked jurisdiction over this appeal and stated that the appeal would be dismissed unless any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response on or before June 5.  See Tex. Const. art. V, § 6(a); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.220(a) (Vernon 2004) (setting out courts of appeals’ jurisdiction).  We have not received a response.  Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL M:	GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  July 13, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  August 28, 1999 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     AUG-28-1999
<CASH>                                                 7,700
<SECURITIES>                                           8,813
<RECEIVABLES>                                         21,157
<ALLOWANCES>                                           1,058
<INVENTORY>                                           26,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      67,393
<PP&E>                                                47,767
<DEPRECIATION>                                        26,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        96,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 17,206
<BONDS>                                                  497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                               1,007
<OTHER-SE>                                            75,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          96,703
<SALES>                                               27,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      27,197
<CGS>                                                 15,114
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         15,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       9,538
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        61
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        2,710
<INCOME-TAX>                                             912
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    1,798
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           1,798
<EPS-BASIC>                                              .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .18



</TABLE>
House Calendar No. 274

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3535

[Report No. 104–780]

A BILL

To redesignate a Federal building in Suitland,

Building’’.Maryland, as the ‘‘W. Edwards Deming Federal

SEPTEMBER 10, 1996

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IB

House Calendar No. 274

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3535

[Report No. 104–780]

To redesignate a Federal building in Suitland, Maryland, as the ‘‘W. Edwards

Deming Federal Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 1996

Mr. WYNN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

SEPTEMBER 10, 1996

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To redesignate a Federal building in Suitland, Maryland,

as the ‘‘W. Edwards Deming Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 Federal Office Building No. 3, located in the Suitland

5 Federal Center at 4700 Silver Hill Road in Suitland,
2

•HR 3535 RH

1 Maryland, shall be redesignated and known as the ‘‘W.

2 Edwards Deming Federal Building’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

6 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

7 a reference to the ‘‘W. Edwards Deming Federal

8 Building’’.
#### In re George HARLOW et al. v. The CITY OF BIRMINGHAM. Ex parte George Harlow. Ex parte Thomas D. McGARY. Ex parte Michael ROBINSON.

SC 730.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 9, 1974.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1974.

Ferris S. Ritchey, Jr., Birmingham, Robert Eugene Smith, D. Freeman Hutton, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioners.

No brief for respondent.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

Writ denied. (No opinion).

.MERRILL, COLEMAN, HARWOOD, MADDOX, McCALL and FAULKNER, JJ., concur.

JONES, J., dissents.

HEFLIN, C. J., not sitting.

JONES, Justice

(dissenting).

I would grant the writ. My views have been expressed in McKinney v. City of Birmingham, 292 Ala. -, 296 So.2d 236 (1974), released simultaneously with this opinion, and I respectfully dissent on the same grounds.
§ 423.1004 Scope and applicability. ( a ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth procedures for reviewing initial determinations that CMS makes with respect to the matters specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Initial determinations by CMS.* CMS makes initial determinations with respect to the imposition of civil money penalties in accordance with part 423, subpart O.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3524

To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize the National Guard

of a State, as part of a drug interdiction and counter-drug activities

plan, to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the transportation of aliens who have violated a Federal or State law prohibiting

or regulating the possession, use, or distribution of a controlled substance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 1996

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

Committee on National Security

A BILL

To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize the

National Guard of a State, as part of a drug interdiction

and counter-drug activities plan, to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the transportation of

aliens who have violated a Federal or State law prohibiting or regulating the possession, use, or distribution of

a controlled substance.

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

•HR 3524 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL GUARD TO ASSIST

2 IN TRANSPORTATION OF CERTAIN ALIENS.

3 Section 112(d)(1) of title 32, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:

5 ‘‘The plan as approved by the Secretary may provide for

6 the use of personnel and equipment of the National Guard

7 of that State to assist the Immigration and Naturalization

8 Service in the transportation of aliens who have violated

9 a Federal or State law prohibiting or regulating the pos10 session, use, or distribution of a controlled substance.’’.

Æ
§ 423.2004 Right to a review of IRE notice of dismissal. ( a ) An enrollee has a right to have an IRE's dismissal of a request for reconsideration reviewed by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator if— ( 1 ) The enrollee files a written request for review within 60 calendar days after receipt of the notice of the IRE's dismissal.
( 2 ) The enrollee meets the amount in controversy requirements of § 423.2006.
( 3 ) For purposes of this section, the date of receipt of the IRE's dismissal is presumed to be 5 calendar days after the date of the written dismissal notice, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
( 4 ) For purposes of meeting the 60 calendar day filing deadline, the request is considered as filed on the date it is received by the office specified in the IRE's dismissal.
( b ) If the ALJ or attorney adjudicator determines that the IRE's dismissal was in error, he or she vacates the dismissal and remands the case to the IRE for a reconsideration in accordance with § 423.2056.
( c ) If the ALJ or attorney adjudicator affirms the IRE's dismissal of a reconsideration request, he or she issues a notice of decision affirming the IRE's dismissal in accordance with § 423.2046(b).
( d ) The ALJ or attorney adjudicator may dismiss the request for review of an IRE's dismissal in accordance with § 423.2052(b).
[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5127, Jan. 17, 2017; 84 FR 19872, May 7, 2019]
# C_2006082EN.01005701.xml

| 5.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/57

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 April 2006

(2006/C 82/14)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2217 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 143,69 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4628 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69835 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3820 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5804 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,04 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8840 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5760 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,513 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 264,61 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9483 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5182 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,62 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,515 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6320 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6951 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4281 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4804 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0070 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9691 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 175,89 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,3950 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7973 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3285 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 10 983,08 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,495 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,331 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,7470 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,233 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2217

JPY

Japanese yen

143,69

DKK

Danish krone

7,4628

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69835

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3820

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5804

ISK

Iceland króna

88,04

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8840

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5760

CZK

Czech koruna

28,513

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

264,61

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9483

RON

Romanian leu

3,5182

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,62

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,515

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6320

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6951

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4281

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4804

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0070

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9691

KRW

South Korean won

1 175,89

ZAR

South African rand

7,3950

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7973

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3285

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

10 983,08

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,495

PHP

Philippine peso

62,331

RUB

Russian rouble

33,7470

THB

Thai baht

47,233

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---