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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6173

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHEVELLE CROWDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (4:08-cr-00002-JLK-2)

Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chevelle Crowder, Appellant Pro Se. Charlene Rene Day, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chevelle Crowder appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion 

seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). 

As we have recognized, however, a district court has no 

authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order 

denying a 3582(c) motion. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 

233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). And in any event, it is evident 

from the record that Crowder is ineligible for the sentence 

reduction that he seeks. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

the district court. United States v. Crowder, No. 4:08-cr00002-JLK-2 (W.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2012). 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
Exhibit 32.2
                                  ------------
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                   18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of Lakeland Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for
the period ending April 30, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Gary Pokrassa, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/Gary Pokrassa
----------------
Gary Pokrassa,
Chief Financial Officer

June 9, 2005
#### CAHABA COAL CO. v. HANBY.

(Decided April 22, 1915.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. John C. Pugh.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Motion to correct clerical error in appeal bond is denied.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-1935 Directorate ID: 2014-SW-008-AD

Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 102 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect or prevent a crack in the subfloor frame.

Costs:

 The visual inspection would require 2 work-hours for a labor cost of $170 per 

helicopter. No parts would be needed, so the cost would total $170 per helicopter, $17,340 for 

the U.S. fleet.

 If there are no cracks, installing the frame reinforcements would require 240 workhours for a labor cost of $20,400 and parts would cost $2,274. The total cost would be $22,674 

per helicopter.

 If there is a crack, installing the frame reinforcements would require 240 work-hours 

for a labor cost of $20,400 and parts would cost $3,401. The total cost would be $23,801 per 

helicopter. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Robert Grant
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT (10)(b)

                         OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY

<PAGE>

April 2, 2003

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001

Re:   Separate Account VA C
      Registration on Form N-4; SEC File No. 333-83957

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Transamerica EXTRA Variable Annuity policies
are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)   the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the policies,

(2)   the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
      policies,

(3)   the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
      of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides for a
      reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)   Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)  Mortality and Expense Risk Free (M & E)

(iii) Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)  Surrender Charges

(v)   Any applicable rider fees or charges

<PAGE>

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
Page 2
April 2, 2003

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (v)
is established in the pricing of the Transamerica EXTRA Variable Annuity, to
achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of
industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the Registration Statement.

/s/ Tim Bennett
---------------------------
Tim Bennett, ASA, MAAA
Assistant Actuary
Transamerica Life Insurance Company
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,116,032
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                   136,123
<INVENTORY>                                  6,481,555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,371,561
<PP&E>                                         566,439
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,121,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,214,776
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,437,096
<PREFERRED>                                  8,000,000
<COMMON>                                         1,773
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,531,683)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,121,962
<SALES>                                        548,033
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               548,033
<CGS>                                          438,253
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,279,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,719,146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,727
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (18,346,699)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,346,699)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (18,346,699)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.12)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, 

et al.

 PROMESA 

 Title III 

 No. 17-BK-3283-LTS 

 (Jointly Administered) 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, 

Debtor.

 PROMESA 

 Title III 

 No. 17-BK-3283-LTS 

This Court Filing relates only to 

Debtor, The Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico in case No. 

17- BK-3283-LTS

 

 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

Please take notice that the undersigned counsel, member of the firm Totti & Rodriguez Diaz, 

PSC, hereby files its appearance as co-counsel representing Cesar Castillo, Inc., in the above 

captioned case, and respectfully request this Honorable Court to be included in the Master Address 

List, and that all notices given or required to be given, and all papers served or required to be 

served, in connection with the captioned case, be given and served upon the undersigned attorneys, 

at the address set forth below. 

 Please take further notice that this appearance does not constitute, and must not be 

construed, as an acknowledgement or acceptance by Cesar Castillo, Inc. of the constitutionality, 

propriety, or validity of Debtor’s petition for relief filed by Debtor on May 3, 2017 under 

PROMESA (48 U.S.C. §2161, et seq.)

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:266 Filed:06/07/17 Entered:06/07/17 17:31:15 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on June 7, 2017.

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that on this same date I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of this Court using the CM-ECF system which will send notification of such 

filing to all CM-ECF participants registered to receive notices in the case at bar. 

 

Totti & Rodríguez Díaz, PSC

P.O. Box 191732 

San Juan, PR 00919-1732 

Tel.: (787)753-7910, Fax: (787)764-9480

s/Hernando A. Rivera

USDC-PR 119803 

Email: har@trdlaw.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:266 Filed:06/07/17 Entered:06/07/17 17:31:15 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN RE:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR 

PUERTO RICO,

As representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

PUERTO RICO, et al

Debtors

PROMESA 

TITLE III

CASE NO. 17-BK 3283 - LTS

(Jointly Administered)

MOTION REQUESTING BRIEF EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL FRIDAY, 

AUGUST 18, 2023, TO FILE A RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM FILED 

BY THE MUNICIPALITY OF MAYAGUEZ

COMES NOW the undersigned attorney, who respectfully states and prays as follows:

1. The undersigned attorneys are counsel for the Municipality of Mayaguez.

2. Pending before this Honorable Court is last week the Financial Oversight and 

Management Board’s (FOMB) objection to, among others, claim #154568 filed by the 

Municipality of Mayaguez, which objection was assigned to the undersigned by the Municipality 

last week.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24877 Filed:08/14/23 Entered:08/14/23 10:12:10 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

3. The undersigned is currently outside the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico which had been 

scheduled prior to receiving the assignment from the Municipality, but planning to work on a 

response by the deadline set forth by the Court of August 14, 2023, at 4:00 P.M.

4. However, the undersigned while on his current stay, suffered the unexpected loss 

of an immediate family member, which prompted tending to that matter.

5. Additionally, information that the Municipality was in the process of clarifying to

file a response, has not yet been received, and given today’s afternoon deadline, and the 

aforementioned personal event, will be hard-pressed to comply with the response by the deadline 

set forth by the Court in a fashion to best oversee the interests of the Municipality of Mayaguez.

The undersigned, however, is scheduled to return to Puerto Rico tomorrow, August 15th, 2023, and 

returning to the office on August 16th, 2023.

6. Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that, on behalf of the 

Municipality of Mayaguez, a brief extension of time until Friday, August 18th, 2023, is afforded 

to file the corresponding response.

WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully requests from this Honorable Court to grant 

the instant motion, and consequently, grant the Municipality of Mayaguez the extension requested.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that on this date, a true copy of the foregoing was filed 

through the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will generate a notice to all CM/ECF participants in 

this case.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24877 Filed:08/14/23 Entered:08/14/23 10:12:10 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

Respectfully submitted, this August 14th, 2023.

ALDARONDO & LOPEZ BRAS, LLC

Attorneys for the Municipality of Mayaguez.

ALB Plaza, Suite 400

16 Las Cumbres Ave. (Road 199)

Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00969

Tel. (787) 474-5447

/s/ Iván M. Castro -Ortiz

IVÁN M. CASTRO - ORTIZ

USDCPR No. 214703

Email: icastro@alblegal.net

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24877 Filed:08/14/23 Entered:08/14/23 10:12:10 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 31-Certification of Chief Financial Officer and Chief Executive
           Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert Kamon, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Australian-
Canadian Oil Royalties Ltd.;

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

4. I am 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 me by others within those
   entities, particularly during the period in which this annual 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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

   c) Presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
   effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my
   evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

   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. I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:   April 14, 2004                 /s/ ROBERT KAMON
                                      Robert Kamon, Secretary and
                                      Chief Financial Officer

                             Exhibit 31
#### DEMING v. AUSTINS’ ADMINISTRATORS.

Justice’s transcript — certainty—void judgment — excess of jurisdiction.

A justice’s transcript which recites that the defendants appeared, and severally acknowledged to owe the plaintiffs two hundred dollars, and bail for stay of execution, shows no judgment and cannot be regarded as such.

When a justice exercises jurisdiction for a debt above one hundred dollars, he is exercising special jurisdiction, and must show his authority on the face of his proceedings.

The justice has no jurisdiction beyond one hundred dollars, without the consent of both parties.

The plaintiffs declared upon a judgment before a justice of the peace for *debt,*two hundred dollars, and ninety cents costs, and rnade proferí of the transcript. Plea, nul tiel record.

The only evidence offered was a transcript from the justice as follows: ‘Deming & Co *v.*C. & S. Austin — June 23, 1818 — personally appeared C. Austin, jr. and S. Austin, and jointly and sev*718erally acknowledged themselves indebted to Messrs. T. & C. Deming & Co. in the sum of two hundred dollars on a note of hand of this date.’ 4 Bail for stay of execution.’

Webb, for the plaintiff,

cited 3 *O. R.*273, 305; 4 *O. R.*327; 5 *O. R.*24.

Loomis, contra.

By the Court.

This Court has always construed the proceedings of justices of the peace liberally, giving them efficacy whenever that can be done with safety; but we do not feel at liberty to disregard all *certainty*in their favor. The transcript before us shows no judgment. It is ostensibly an acknowledgment of a debt of record, as upon a recognizance — there is nothing from which we can conjecture a judgment, except the entry ‘bail for stay of execution.’ Without the agency of both parties, the amount is beyond the jurisdiction of the justice, and his acts would be void. In acting for such an amount, the justice exercises a special jurisdiction, and is bound to show his authority on the face of his proceedings. This transcript only shows the action of the Austins — it nowhere shows the plaintiff acting in any way — no amicable suit is entered, and there is no appearance of or for the plaintiffs. From the sixteen years delay, it would seem they had just discovered the justice’s entry, and -now would avail themselves of it to avoid the statute of limitation. They cannot now make the judgment valid, if not so when it was entered. At any rate the plaintiffs count upon a judgment, and none is shown. We concur in the authorities cited by the plaintiffi but consider them inapplicable, because there is no judgment.

Whether resort can be had to the note, or the original cause of action, we now give no opinion. We find for the defendant.

The plaintiff asked and obtained leave to amend his declaration, on paying all the costs since filing, &c.
#### Condemnation of Lands of Goeringer

*Coughlin <& Hughes,*for petitioner.

*Ralph J. Johnston,*for turnpike commission.

*George Houck,*for board of view.

September 18, 1957.

Lewis, J.,

— This matter comes before the court on exceptions by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to the report of a board of viewers. Exceptant contends inter alia, as follows:

> *“2.*That the Report of the Board of Viewers fails to affirmatively set forth that the viewers in this matter were at any time sworn.

> “3. That the Report of the Board of Viewers does not have attached to it a draft or plan of the property affected.”

Other exceptions have been abandoned.

The record indicates that, after the filing of the exceptions, the board of viewers did file of record an instrument indicating thereon that the viewers had been sworn on March 14, 1957, to faithfuly and impartially perform their duties, etc. Under the circumstances, however, we are of the opinion that the report of the viewers should be amended to indicate that such oath had been taken by the viewers prior to entering upon their duties.

*755The report of the board of viewers indicates that 27.44 acres of petitioner’s property was taken by the Pennsylvania Turnpike as set forth on the map of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission which was submitted to the viewers at the hearing. Furthermore, their report states that four additional parcels of petitioner’s land were taken for the purpose of easements, which easements were described on the map of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission as submitted to the viewers at the hearing.

We believe that, for proper identification purposes, the lands to be used as part of the roadbed and right-of-way and the parcels taken for the purpose of easements should be particularly described in the viewers’ report or that the map to which the viewers referred should be attached to their report.

Now, therefore, the exceptions to the report of the board of viewers numbered 1, 4 and 5 are dismissed, exceptions numbered 2 and 3 are sustained and the board of viewers is ordered and directed to file a supplemental report in conformity with this decision.
§ 17.7 Filing and computation of time. ( a ) Filing of a protest or contract dispute may be accomplished by overnight delivery, by hand delivery, by Fax, or, if permitted by Order of the ODRA, by electronic filing. A protest or contract dispute is considered to be filed on the date it is received by the ODRA during normal business hours. The ODRA's normal business hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. A protest or contract dispute received after the time period prescribed for filing shall not be considered timely filed. Service shall also be made on the Contracting Officer (CO) pursuant to §§ 17.15(e) and 17.27(d).
( b ) Submissions to the ODRA after the initial filing of a protest or contract dispute may be accomplished by any means available in paragraph (a) of this section. Copies of all such submissions shall be served on the opposing party or parties.
( c ) The time limits stated in this part are calculated in business days, which exclude weekends, Federal holidays and other days on which Federal Government offices in Washington, DC are not open. In computing time, the day of the event beginning a period of time shall not be included. If the last day of a period falls on a weekend or a Federal holiday, the first business day following the weekend or holiday shall be considered the last day of the period.
( d ) Electronic Filing—Procedures for electronic filing may be utilized where permitted by Order of the ODRA on a case-by-case basis or pursuant to a Standing Order of the ODRA permitting electronic filing.