alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Each of theundersigned in the capacity indicated hereby certifies that, to his knowledge,this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 5, 2003 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, and the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TheWilliam Carter Company.

 

 
|   | Date:  May  16, 2003 | /s/ FREDERICK J.  ROWAN, II |   |
|--------|---------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   |                      |                        |   |
|   |                      | Frederick J.  Rowan, II     |   |
|   |                      | *Chief Executive Officer*   |   |
|   |                      |                        |   |
|   |                      |                        |   |
|   | Date:  May  16, 2003 | /s/ MICHAEL D.  CASEY       |   |
|   |                      |                        |   |
|   |                      | Michael D. Casey            |   |
|   |                      | *Chief Financial Officer*   |   |

 

----
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Notices 24539

1This proceeding is related to two concurrently

filed notices of exemption in Illinois Indiana

Development Company, LLC—Acquisition and

Operation Exemption—Norfolk Southern Railway

Company, STB Finance Docket No. 33845 (STB

served and published at 65 FR 10149 on Feb. 25,

2000); and Chicago SouthShore & South Bend

Railroad—Operation Exemption—Illinois Indiana

Development Company, LLC, STB Finance Docket

No. 33819 (STB served and published at 65 FR

10148 on Feb. 25, 2000).

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33846]

Peter A. Gilbertson, et al., and

SouthShore Corporation—Control

Exemption—Illinois Indiana

Development Company, LLC

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

SUMMARY: The Board grants an

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502, from

the prior approval requirements of 49

U.S.C. 11323–25, for Peter A.

Gilbertson, H. Terry Hearst, Bruce A.

Lieberman, and SouthShore Corporation

(collectively petitioners) to acquire

control of Illinois Indiana Development

Company, LLC (IIDC).1

DATES: This exemption will be effective

May 26, 2000. Petitions to stay must be

filed by May 11, 2000, and petitions to

reopen must be filed by May 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of pleadings referring to STB

Finance Docket No. 33846 to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, send one copy of

pleadings to petitioners’ representative:

Rose-Michele Weinryb, Weiner,

Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, P.C., 1350

New York Ave., NW., Suite 800,

Washington, DC 20005–4797.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 565–1600. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional information is contained in

the Board’s decision. To purchase a

copy of the full decision, write to, call,

or pick up in person from: Da ̄-To-Da ̄

Office Solutions, 1925 K Street, NW.,

Suite 405, Washington, DC 20006.

Telephone: (202) 466–5530. [Assistance

for the hearing impaired is available

through TDD Services 1–800–877–

8339.]

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: April 19, 2000.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice

Chairman Burkes, and Commissioner

Clyburn.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–10423 Filed 4–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P
#### EDWARDS V. THE STATE.

(Decided January 22, 1914.)

Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

No counsel marked for appellant. R. C, Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for'the State.

Per curiam.

; Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3



                                PLEDGE AMENDMENT



     This Pledge Amendment, dated as of March 15, 1999, is delivered pursuant to
Section 5(b) of the Stock Pledge Agreement, dated as of July 2, 1998 (the
"Agreement"; capitalized terms defined in the Agreement being used herein as
therein defined), by the undersigned in favor of BankBoston, N.A., as Agent. The
undersigned hereby agrees that this Pledge Amendment may be attached to the
Agreement, and that the Pledged Shares listed on this Pledge Amendment shall be
deemed to be and shall become part of the Pledged Collateral and shall secure
all Secured Obligations. Nothing contained in this Pledge Amendment shall be
deemed or construed to (i) release or impair any of the Pledged Shares or other
Pledged Collateral existing in favor of the Agent as of the date hereof, or (ii)
waive or limit any right or remedy of the Agent or the Lenders under the
Agreement or with respect to any such Pledged Shares or Pledged Collateral.



                                INTEREP NATIONAL RADIO SALES, INC.



                                By: /s/ William J. McEntee, Jr.
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    Name:  William J. McEntee, Jr.
                                    Title: Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                        CERTIF-    NUMBER OF    NUMBER OF     NUMBER OF
                    CLASS OF     PAR     ICATE      SHARES     OUTSTANDING   AUTHORIZED
    ISSUER           STOCK      VALUE    NO(S)      PLEDGED       SHARES       SHARES
    ------           -----      -----    -----      --------      ------       ------
<S>               <C>         <C>      <C>        <C>        <C>           <C>

 American Radio      Common     $.01      1          100             100        1000
   Sales, Inc

</TABLE>
#### § 796.1 What is the purpose and scope of this part?

This part identifies those National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) employees who are subject to the special, post-employment restrictions in section 1786(w) of the Act and implements those restrictions as they apply to NCUA employees.
# Map            Syria, administrative divisions.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3517

To suspend temporarily the duty on 786 neutral vinyl acetate polymer in 

aqueous solution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2003

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on 786 neutral vinyl acetate 

polymer in aqueous solution.

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

3 SECTION 1. 786 NEUTRAL VINYL ACETATE POLYMER IN 

4 AQUEOUS SOLUTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading:
2

•HR 3517 IH 

‘‘ 9902.33.21 786 neutral vinyl 

acetate polymer 

in aqueous solution (provided for 

in subheading 

3905.12.00) ....... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Jose M. ANDUJAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 85-3933

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 17, 1986.

*405Laura C. Jones, Department of Health & Human Services, Atlanta, Ga., Dorothea Beane, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Andujar’s disability benefits were suspended because he was imprisoned after being convicted of two felonies and was not participating in an approved rehabilitation program. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(l) (Supp. II 1985). He challenges the constitutionality and the application of § 402(x)(l), under which his disability benefits were suspended while he was incarcerated. Section 402(x)(l) suspends benefits to a prisoner

> for any month during which such individual is confined in a jail, prison, or other penal institution or correctional facility, pursuant to his conviction of an offense which constituted a felony under applicable law, unless such individual is actively and satisfactorily participating in a rehabilitation program which has been specifically approved for such individual by a court of law and, as determined by the Secretary, is expected to result in such individual being able to engage in substantial gainful activity upon release and within a reasonable time.

We hold that § 402(x)(l) is constitutional— we find no violation of due process, no punishment without trial, and no bill of attainder or ex post facto law. *Cf. Fleming v. Nestor,*363 U.S. 603, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960) (holding constitutional the *termination*of old-age benefits payable to an alien who is deported on certain grounds). Andujar’s other claims are also without merit.

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman ALEXANDER J. SARTORIUS

United States Air Force

ACM S32203

26 November 2014

Sentence adjudged 19 Decemb er 201 3 by SP CM convened at Travis Air

Force Base, California . Military Judge: Jill M. Thomas (sitting alone).

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 30 day s

, and

reduction to E

- 1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Thomas A. Smith

.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Major Daniel J. Breen and Gerald

R. Bruce, Esquire

.

Before

ALLRED

, HECKER , and TELLER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occ urred. Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

Accor dingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

STEVE N LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
FILED 

LLOYD BELL, 

Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 3 0 2009 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, CLERK 

U S. DISTRICT COURT 

1 

v. ) CivilActionNo. u9 1868 

) 

JILL R. GRANT, 1 

) 

Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted, but the complaint will 

be dismissed. 

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Jill Grant engaged in a criminal conspiracy by prescribing 

medication for the treatment of plaintiffs mental illness with knowledge of its objectionable side 

affects. See Compl. at 2. Plaintiff "is seeking restitutional punishment money for the crimes 

exposed in this complaint" in the amount of $1 million. Id. at 3. 

Generally, "in the criminal context, the Supreme Court has refused to imply a private 

right of action in 'a bare criminal statute."' Prunte v. Universal Music Group, 484 F. Supp. 2d 

32,42 (D.D.C. 2006) (quoting Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79-80 (1975)). The criminal statute on 

which plaintiff appears to rely, 18 U.S.C. 5 241, does not create a private right of action. See 

Ibrahim v. Latham & Watkins, No. 09-0732,2009 WL 1076695 (D.D.C. Apr. 22,2009) 

(dismissing criminal conspiracy claim on the ground that "[o]nly the federal government can 

bring an action for criminal conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 5 24lW), aff'd, No. 09-7048,2009 WL 

1 2762198 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 28,2009). 
The Court will dismiss this action because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 44 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(l). 

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. 

United States District Judge
#### Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. *v.*Comer.

*Injury to Passenger.*

(Decided February 13, 1914.

64 South. 533.)

*Appeal and Brror; Remittitur; Bsocessive Damages.*— Under Acts 1911, p. 587, it is the duty of the appellate courts, when a verdict is deemed excessive, to direct a reversal unless the appellee shall remit the excess, as determined by the court.

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. John H. Miller.

Action by Mrs. Eula V. Comer against the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Company, for damages to her as a passenger. Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $500 and defendant appeals.

A remittitur of $300 from said amount is ordered by the court, and the cause is affirmed, otherwise it was reversed and remanded.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, and Charles E. Rice, for appellant.

The court erred in refusing to grant a new trial because under the evidence the verdict is highly *excessive.*— L. *& N. v.*Sanders, 61 South. 482; *B. R. L. & P. Go. v. Nolan,*134 Ala. 329; *B. R. L. & P. Go. v. Ward,*27 South. 471.; 52 N. W. 966; 146 S. W. 849; 44 S. E. 1001; 31 S. E. 182; 113 Pac. 268; 107 S. W. 422.

Harsh, Beddow & Fitts, for appellee.

The amout to be awarded in this case was within the sound discretion of the jury, and was not so excessive as to indicate prejudice, passion or *corruption.*— G. *of Ga. v. White,*175 Ala. 62; *Montgomery T. Go. v. Knabe,*158 Ala. 458; 65 Am. St. Rep. 412; 93 Am. Dec. 80; 9 Am. St. Rep. 769; 112 Pac. 845.

*262PELHAM, J.

The only ground of reversal urged is that the judgment of the lower court, for $500, is excessive as referred to the evidence. The appellee (a passenger) brought suit against the appellant street railway company for failing to discharge her at the place of her destination in the city of Birmingham, which she finally reached after the expenditure of an additional 5 cents car fare and a circuitous route on different car lines of the defendant, occasioning a delay of about one hour. The court eliminated the wanton counts on charges requested by appellant, and the case was submitted to the jury on the simple negligence counts only.

The entire court has carefully considered the evidence set out in the bill of exceptions, and is impressed with the idea that a verdict in any greater amount than $200 would be so excessive as to be indicative of prejudice, passion, or partiality on the part of the jury. Consequently, under the well-known rules of law pertaining to the reversal of judgments deemed to be excessive, and the requirements of the act approved April 21,1911, to regulate proceedings, etc., of that nature in this court (Acts 1911, p. 587), it becomes our duty to order a reversal of the judgment of the trial court unless the appellee remit the amount of the judgment recovered there in excess of $200 (i. e., $300) within 30 days from the date of the rendition of this opinion. It is so ordered, and the clerk will give the notice required by statute.

Remittitur of part of damages recovered ordered
###### Editorial Note on Part 745

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 745 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 745.12 Account obligations for payment of items forwarded for collection by depository institution acting as agent.

Where a closed credit union has become obligated for the payment of items forwarded for collection by a depository institution acting solely as agent, the owner of such items will be recognized for all purposes of a claim for insured accounts to the same extent as if his name and interest were disclosed on the records of the credit union when such claim for insured accounts, if otherwise payable, has been established by the execution and delivery of prescribed forms. Such depository institution forwarding such items for the owners thereof will be recognized as agent for such owners for the purpose of making an assignment of the rights of such owners against the closed insured credit union to the Board and for the purpose of receiving payment on behalf of such owners.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3699

To reinstate the safeguard measures imposed on imports of certain steel 

products, as in effect on December 4, 2003. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2003

Mr. VISCLOSKY (for himself, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. MOLLOHAN, 

Mr. CARDIN, Mr. STUPAK, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. 

LEVIN, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. 

BERRY, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BROWN of 

Ohio, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. HOEFFEL, 

Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. 

EVANS, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. BACA, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

CARDOZA, Mr. CLAY, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASTOR, 

Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. PAYNE, 

Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. 

MICHAUD, Mr. SANDLIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. DELAHUNT, 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. BOSWELL, and Mr. 

MCNULTY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To reinstate the safeguard measures imposed on imports 

of certain steel products, as in effect on December 4, 2003.

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

•HR 3699 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keeping America’s 

3 Promise to Steel Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON 

5 CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS. 

6 Notwithstanding the proclamation of the President of 

7 the United States of December 4, 2003—

8 (1) those safeguard measures implemented 

9 under Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002, with re10 spect to certain steel products, including the modi11 fications made by Proclamation 7529 to subchapter 

12 III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

13 of the United States, shall remain in effect during 

14 the period beginning on December 5, 2003, and end15 ing on the applicable date provided in subchapter III 

16 of chapter 99 of such Schedule, as in effect on De17 cember 4, 2003; and 

18 (2) the proclamation of the President of Decem19 ber 4, 2003, and the modifications to the Har20 monized Tariff Schedule made by that proclamation, 

21 shall have no effect.

Æ
#### § 404.25 Other rights and services.

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the Privacy Act.

[64 FR 14374, Mar. 25, 1999. Redesignated at 87 FR 41034, July 11, 2022]
Editorial Note on Part 741
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 741 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 741.202 Audit and verification requirements. ( a ) The supervisory committee of each credit union insured pursuant to title II of the Act shall make or cause to be made an audit of the credit union at least once every calendar year covering the period elapsed since the last audit. The audit must fully meet the applicable requirements set forth in part 715 of this chapter or applicable state law, whichever requirement is more stringent.
( b ) Each credit union which is insured pursuant to title II of the Act shall verify or cause to be verified, under controlled conditions, all passbooks and accounts with the records of the financial officer not less frequently than once every 2 years. The verification must fully meet the requirements set forth in § 715.8 of this chapter.
[60 FR 58504, Nov. 28, 1995, as amended at 64 FR 41040, July 29, 1999]
Exhibit 23.2

                               SODAK GAMING, INC.



                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT





The Board of Directors
Sodak Gaming, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
33-92524 on Form S-8 of Sodak Gaming, Inc. of our report dated February 4, 1998,
relating to the balance sheet of Sodak Gaming Peru S.A. (a subsidiary of Sodak
Gaming, Inc.) as of December 31, 1997 and the related statements of operations,
shareholders' deficit and cash flows for the year then ended, which report is
included in the 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Sodak Gaming, Inc. Our report
refers to a change in accounting for pre-opening and start-up costs in 1997.



                               \s\ Arthur Andersen



Lima, Peru
March 30, 1998
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129086 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan BARBARA DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129086 COA: 260319 WCAC: 03-000474 GENERAL MOTORS CO RPORATION, LAD LANSING BODY ASSEMBLY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 20, 2005 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.

t1219 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.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00120-CR

SERGIO MALDONADO FACUNDO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-16-25804

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Court Reporter Charla Reamy recorded the trial court proceedings in appellate cause 

number 06-17-00120-CR, styled Sergio Maldonado Facundo v. The State of Texas, trial court 

cause number CR-16-25804 in the 336th Judicial District Court of Fannin County, Texas. The 

reporter’s record was originally due in this matter on July 11, 2017. That deadline was extended 

twice by this Court, resulting in the most recent due date of September 11, 2017. Reamy has now 

filed a third request for an extension of the filing deadline. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establish that “trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). The 

Rules further instruct that an “appellate court may enter any order necessary to ensure the timely 

filing of the appellate record.” Id. In furtherance of our responsibilities established by the Rules, 

we find we must take steps to ensure that the record in this case is filed in a reasonable amount of 

time.

Therefore, we order Reamy to file the reporter’s record in appellate cause number 06-17-

00120-CR, styled Sergio Maldonado Facundo v. The State of Texas, trial court cause number CR16-25804 in the 336th Judicial District Court of Fannin County, Texas, to be received no later than 

the close of business on Wednesday, October 11, 2017.

If the reporter’s record is not received on or before October 11, we warn Reamy that we 

may begin contempt proceedings and order her to show cause why she should not be held in 

contempt of this Court for failing to obey its order.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: September 19, 2017