alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in (a) the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  333-3212)  pertaining to the Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation 1995
Incentive  Stock Option Plan, the Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation  Non-Qualified
Stock Option Plan, the Columbus McKinnon  Corporation  Restricted Stock Plan and
the Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation  Employee Stock  Ownership Plan  Restatement
Effective  April  1,  1989  of  Columbus   McKinnon   Corporation  and  (b)  the
Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8 No.  333-81719)  pertaining  to the  Options
assumed  by  Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation  originally  granted  under  the GL
International,  Inc.  1997 Stock Option Plan and the Larco  Industrial  Services
Ltd. 1997 Stock Option Plan of our reports  dated June 6, 2005,  with respect to
the  consolidated   financial  statements  and  schedule  of  Columbus  McKinnon
Corporation  and  subsidiaries,   Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation   management's
assessment of the  effectiveness of internal  control over financial  reporting,
and the  effectiveness of internal control over financial  reporting of Columbus
McKinnon  Corporation  and  subsidiaries,  included in this Annual  Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2005.


                                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


June 7, 2005
Buffalo, New York































                                       39
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

January 10, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30106

Summary Calendar

LONDELL HARPER, JR.,

Plaint iffAppellant,

versus

JERRY GOODWIN; JOHN STEPHENSON;

EARL BENSON; VENETIA MICHAEL;

JOHN ROBINSON,

DefendantsAppellees.

-------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:04-CV-1357

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

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Londell Harper, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 386923, appeals the district court’s dismissal of

his civil rights action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. To the extent that Harper alleges

that he was denied due process in conjunction with his discipl inary hearing, his placement in

administrative segregation for 23 days is insufficient to raise due process concerns. S ee Sandin-2-

v. Conner

, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Although a loss of good time credits requires the prisoner to

receive due process protections, see Madison v. Parker

, 104 F.3d 765, 769 (5th Cir. 1997), Harper’s

credits were restored when the disciplinary conviction was overturned on direct appeal.

Harper also contends that his constitutional rights were violated when he was falsely accused

of participating in a sex o ffense. This allegation is insufficient to invoke the Constitution. S ee

Castellano v. Fragoz o

, 352 F.3d 939, 953-54 (5th Cir. 2003)(en banc)(no federal constitutional claim

based on tort of malicious prosecution).

Harper’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus f rivolous. S ee Howard v. King

, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we DISMISS Harper’s appeal as frivolous. S ee 5th

Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal of his appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of his

complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim constitute two strikes for the purposes of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). S ee Adepegba v. Hammons

, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). If Harper obtains

three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while

he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
§ 414.37 Modification, suspension, or revocation of a safety element approval. ( a ) *The safety element approval holder.* The safety element approval holder may submit an application to the FAA to modify the terms and conditions of the holder's safety element approval. The application must meet all the applicable requirements under this part. The FAA will review and make a determination on the application using the same procedures under this part applicable to an initial safety element approval application. If the FAA denies the request to modify a safety element approval, the holder may correct any deficiency the FAA identified and request reconsideration. The holder also has the right to appeal a denial as set forth in subpart D of this part.
( b ) *The FAA.* If the FAA finds it is in the interest of public health and safety, safety of property, or if the safety element approval holder fails to comply with any applicable requirements of this part, any terms and conditions of the safety element approval, or any other applicable requirement, the FAA may— ( 1 ) Modify the terms and conditions of the safety element approval; or
( 2 ) Suspend or revoke the safety element approval.
( c ) *Effective date.* Unless otherwise stated by the FAA, any modification, suspension, or revocation of a safety element approval under paragraph (b)— ( 1 ) Takes effect immediately; and
( 2 ) Continues in effect during any reconsideration or appeal of such action under this part.
( d ) *Notification and right to appeal.* If the FAA determines it is necessary to modify, suspend, or revoke a safety element approval, we will notify the safety element approval holder in writing. If the holder disagrees with the FAA's determination, the holder may correct any deficiency the FAA identified and request a reconsideration of the determination. The applicant also has the right to appeal the determination as set forth in subpart D of this part.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Chetco Peak quadrangle, Oregon: 7.5-minute series (topographic)**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:42123-B 8/
Item Number:0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000932052
 
January 24, 2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1134 

KA 11-01036 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JASON LAWSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 6.)

 

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Jeffrey R.

Merrill, A.J.), rendered October 5, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Same Memorandum as in People v Lawson ([appeal No. 7] ___ AD3d

___ [Jan. 2, 2015]).

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-83,941-01 & WR-83,941-02

EX PARTE MARCUS QUIN BUTLER, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. W12-60367-L(A) & W12-71810-L(A)

IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 5 OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense

of sexual assault and stalking and sentenced to imprisonment for three years in each cause. The Fifth

Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals filed in these convictions. Butler v. State, Nos. 05-14-

00276-CR; 05-14-00277-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 17, 2014)(not designated for publication).

On April 1, 2015, an order designating issues was signed by the trial court, but no findings

have been forwarded to this Court. We remand these applications to the Criminal District Court No.
5 of Dallas County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation and enter

findings of fact and conclusions of law.

These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. 

The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: October 14, 2015

Do not publish
[No. 49183-1-I.

Division One.

November 25, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. James Edwin Mullins, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-02773-1, Jay V. White, J., entered August 10, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Agid and Ellington, JJ.
#### § 291.22 Aircraft accident liability insurance requirement.

No air carrier shall operate all-cargo aircraft or provide all-cargo air transportation unless such carrier has and maintains in effect aircraft accident liability coverage that meets the requirements of part 205 of this chapter.

[ER-1255, 46 FR 52583, Oct. 27, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 43526, Aug. 22, 1995]
## Martin, Michael (OST)

From: 

### Sent: 

### To: Subject: Michael, Chuck Howell <chowell@flygreatlakes.com> Wednesday, March OS,2014 12:55 PM Martin, Michael (OsT) RE:support of SOW - FNM - DEN route

Asyou are aware we have flown SOW-FMN-DEN roundtrip in the past and are now again requesting adding the Denver Hub in addition to the current Phoenix Hub to allow flow of airplanes and crew for better efficiency. This will beaone-stop over Farmington NM aswe did before. This will beflown under the same departure rate in the current EASOrder. Therefore no additional subsidy isbeing requested. We are schedule to start this service pattern on March 9, 2014. Ifyou have any additional questions please let usknow. Thanks in advance for your help in this matter. Regards, Chuck Howell CEO

1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7543
LEON KEITH GASKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANK C. SIZER, JR.; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-6364
LEON KEITH GASKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANK C. SIZER, JR.; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-1392-WMN)2 Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 20, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Leon Keith Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Leon Keith Gaskins seeks to appeal three district court orders granting extensions of time to Respondents, and the order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Gaskins v. Sizer , No. CA-97-1392-WMN (D. Md. June 12, 1997, Aug. 26, 1997, Sept. 26, 1997, and Feb. 27, 1998).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
J-A13014-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ESTATE OF EDWARD L. IRWIN, 

JR., ALSO KNOWN AS EDWARD L. IRWIN

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: ROXANNE ROTHBERGER

No. 1125 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered June 5, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans’ Court at No: 2003 OF 2013

BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2016

I fully join the Majority and write solely to express my view that when 

a trust “terminates” upon a principal’s death under 20 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 5603(b)(1), it is a reference to the fact that the purpose of the trust has 

been fulfilled. This is not the equivalent, however, of saying that a trustee 

no longer has any duties upon a principal’s death. Administration of a trust 

must be completed, and that includes all attendant duties necessary to 

closing out a trust. 

To be sure, Section 5603(b)(1) is not per se a termination provision. 

Rather, Section 5603(b) only provides authority for an agent acting under a 

power of attorney to establish a trust for the benefit of a principal. Section 

5603(b)(1) directs how the income and corpus of a trust may be used during 

a principal’s life and provides that, upon a principal’s death, any remaining 
J-A13014-16

- 2 -

balance is to be paid to the principal’s estate. While Section 5603(b) 

authorizes the creation of a trust and Section 5603(b)(1) addresses the 

disposition of trust assets, both are silent as to trust administration. The 

Uniform Trust Act (“UTA”), however, applies to all express trusts. 20 

Pa.C.S.A. § 7702. A trust created under Section 5603(b) is an express trust. 

The UTA more fully addresses the duties of a trustee during and upon 

termination of a trust, including the duty to take reasonable steps to enforce 

or defend claims of a trust and to file an account of his or her administration. 

See 20 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7780.1, 7797. The point being, a principal’s death 

under Section 5603(b)(1) measures the duration of a trust, but does not 

eliminate the obligation of a trustee to wind up and complete the 

administration of a trust. A contrary conclusion, as suggested by the 

Decedent’s son David—arguably a judgment debtor of the trust—would, in a 

sense, create a rudderless ship unable to find its destination port.

Judge Olson joins this concurring memorandum.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: May 31, 2000.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 6700-B Rockledge, Room 2217, Bethesda, MD 20892 
(telephone conference call).
    Contact Person: M. Sayeed Quraishi, Scientific Review Program, 
Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2220, 6700-B 
Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, Bethesda, MD 20892-7610; 301-496-2550.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 4, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-11769 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 399
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 399 appear at 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 399.36 Unreasonable discrimination. ( a ) As used in this section: ( 1 ) *Unreasonable discrimination* means unjust discrimination or unreasonable preference or prejudice; and
( 2 ) *Rate* means rate, fare, or charge.
( b ) Except in unusual circumstances or as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the Departmentwill find a rate for domestic air transportation to constitute unreasonable discrimination only if: ( 1 ) There is a reasonable probability that the rate will result in significant long-run economic injury to passengers or shippers;
( 2 ) The rate is in fact discriminatory according to a reasonable cost allocation or other rational basis;
( 3 ) The rate does not provide transportation or other statutorily recognized benefits that justify the discrimination; and
( 4 ) Actual and potential competitive forces cannot reliably be expected to eliminate the undesirable effects of the discrimination within a reasonable period.
( c ) A rate that discriminates on the basis of the status of the traffic carried will not be presumed to be unreasonably discriminatory, unless the use of the status categories in question is contrary to established national anti-discrimination policy.
[PS-93, 45 FR 36062, May 29, 1980]
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11570]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6602-7]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(``CERCLA''), Union Pacific Railroad Wallace-Mullan Branch

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company for 
recovery of certain response costs concerning the Union Pacific 
Railroad Wallace-Mullan Branch in northern Idaho. The settlement 
requires Union Pacific to pay a total of $650,000 to the Hazardous 
Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a limited covenant not to 
sue pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9607(a) and provides for contribution 
protection pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9622(h). This administrative 
settlement will be superseded upon entry of a consent decree lodged on 
December 23, 1999, by the United States, State of Idaho, Coeur d'Alene, 
and Union Pacific, Case No. 99-606-N-EJL (D. Idaho), or will otherwise 
terminate three months from the effective date of the administrative 
settlement, unless otherwise agreed by the parties to this settlement. 
EPA will consider public comments on the proposed administrative 
settlement for thirty days. EPA may withdraw from or modify this 
proposed settlement should such comments disclose facts or 
considerations which indicate this proposed settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

DATES: Written comments must be provided on or before June 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Clifford J. Villa, Assistant 
Regional Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 
Sixth Ave., ORC-158, Seattle, Washington 98101 and refer to In the 
Matter of Union Pacific Railroad Wallace-Mullan Branch Notice of 
Proposed Administrative Settlement.
    Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Clifford J. 
Villa, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of 
Regional Counsel, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206) 
553-1185.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford J. Villa at (206) 553-1185.

    Authority: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 
U.S.C. 9622(i).

Sheila M. Eckman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 00-11570 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
§ 415.117 Ground safety. ( a ) *General.* An applicant's safety review document must include a ground safety analysis report, and a ground safety plan for its launch processing and post-flight operations as required by this section, § 417.109 of this chapter, and subpart E of part 417 of this chapter when launching from a launch point in the United States. Launch processing and post-launch operations at a launch point outside the United States may be subject to the requirements of the governing jurisdiction.
( b ) *Ground safety analysis.* A ground safety analysis must review each system and operation used in launch processing and post-flight operations as required by § 417.109 of this chapter, and subpart E of part 417 of this chapter. ( 1 ) An applicant must file an initial ground safety analysis report no later than 12 months for any orbital or guided suborbital launch vehicle, and nine months for an unguided suborbital launch vehicle, before the applicant brings any launch vehicle to the proposed launch site. An initial ground safety analysis report must be in a proposed final or near final form and identify any incomplete items. An applicant must document any incomplete items and track them to completion. An applicant must resolve any FAA comments on the initial report and file a complete ground safety analysis report, no later than two months before the applicant brings any launch vehicle to the proposed launch site. Furthermore, an applicant must keep its ground safety analysis report current. Any late developing change to a ground safety analysis report must be coordinated with the FAA as an application amendment as required by § 413.17 of this chapter as soon as the applicant identifies the need for a change.
( 2 ) An applicant must file a ground safety analysis report that satisfies the ground safety analysis requirements of § 417.109 of this chapter, and subpart E of part 417 of this chapter.
( 3 ) The person designated under § 417.103(b)(1) of this chapter and the person designated under § 417.103(b)(2) of this chapter must approve and sign the ground safety analysis report.
( c ) *Ground safety plan.* An applicant's safety review document must contain a ground safety plan that satisfies § 417.111(c) of this chapter. The applicant must file this plan with the FAA no later than six months prior to bringing the launch vehicle to the proposed launch site. This ground safety plan must describe implementation of the hazard controls identified by an applicant's ground safety analysis and implementation of the ground safety requirements of subpart E of part 417 of this chapter. A ground safety plan must address all public safety related issues and may include other ground safety issues if an applicant intends it to have a broader scope.