alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Ford Lumber & Building Supply, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 61619

)

Under Contract No. DACA27

- 1

- 96

- 9 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Dean Ford

Corporate Officer

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

R. Lauren Horner

, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney

U.S. Army Engineer District, Louisville

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board’s

docket with prejudice.

Dated: March 17, 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61619

, Appeal of Ford Lumber &

Building Supply, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: March 17, 2021 DAVID D’ALESSANDRIS

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Se rvices

Board of Contract Appeals
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Morning Session:

Set: 9:30 AM (AST)

Started: 9:35 AM (AST)

Ended: 10:44 AM (AST)

Afternoon Session:

Set: 2:30 PM (AST)

Started: 2:42 PM (AST)

Ended: 3:46 PM (AST)

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE JUDGE LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN DATE: June 6, 2023

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JUDITH G. DEIN

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Carmen Tacoronte

COURT REPORTER: Amy Walker

In Re: 

The Financial Oversight and Management 

Board for Puerto Rico

as representative of

3:17-BK-3283 (LTS)

PROMESA Title III

(Jointly Administered)

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al.,

Debtors

In Re: 

The Financial Oversight and Management Board 

for Puerto Rico

3:17-BK-4780 (LTS)

PROMESA Title III

as representative of

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority,

(Jointly Administered)

Debtor

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24441 Filed:06/06/23 Entered:06/07/23 08:55:44 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
3:17-BK-3283 (LTS) / 3:17-BK-4780 (LTS) / 3:19-AP-391 (LTS)

Section 502 Claim Estimation Hearing – June 06, 2023

Page 2 of 2

Section 502 Claim Estimation Hearing held.

I. CONTESTED MATTER

1. Burden of Proof and Applicable Legal Standards in a Claim Estimation Proceeding

2. Temporal Scope of Equitable Remedy Access to Net Revenues for Purposes of 

Estimation of Unsecured Net Revenue

3. Applicable Law/Statute of Limitations

4. Valuation Concepts: Discounting to Present Value, the Distinction (if any) 

between “Claim Amount” and “Claim Value” Applicable Law/Statute of 

Limitations

5. Scope of Operational Expenses to be taken into Account in Determining Net 

Revenues

6. Evidentiary Hearing Opening Statements

Further Section 502 Claim Estimation Hearing set for June 7, 2023, at 9:30 AM (AST) 

before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. 

s/Carmen Tacoronte

Carmen Tacoronte

Courtroom Deputy 

The Financial Oversight and Management Board 

for Puerto Rico, et al., 

Plaintiffs

3:19-AP-00391 (LTS)

in 3:17-BK-4780 (LTS)

v. 

U.S. Bank National Association, et al.,

Defendants.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24441 Filed:06/06/23 Entered:06/07/23 08:55:44 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### Wreim *v.*Baker.

Assumpsit.

(Decided December 19, 1916.

73 South. 756.)

1. Bill of Exceptions; Presentation; Time. — The presentation to the trial judge of the bill of exceptions within 90 days from the date of the judgment is jurisdictional, and an instrument presented after the lapse of that time is not a bill of exceptions, although signed by the trial judge.

2. Same; Striking. — The provisions of § 3020, Code 1907,» has application to the unseasonable signing by the judge of the bill of exceptions, and not the unseasonable presentation of the bill to him.

Appeal from Coosa Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer.

Assumpsit by D. W. Baker against M. J. Wrenn. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

John A. Darden, for appellant.

Riddle & Burt, for appellee.

EVANS, J.

The transcript in this appeal shows that the judgment below was obtained op December 6, 191.5, and the bill *435of exceptions was presented to the trial judge on March 8, 1916 —93 days after the entry of judgment,

(1) Under the authorities, the limitation of 90 days for the presentation of a bill of exceptions is jurisdictional, and an instrument signed by the trial judge, but not presented within the required time, is no bill of *exceptions.*— Box *v. South. Ry. Co.,*184 Ala. 598, 64 South. 69; *Hartselle & Co. v. Wilhite,*3 Ala. App. 612, 57 South. 129; *Edinburgh-American Land Mortgage Co. v. Canterbury,*169 Ala. 444, 53 South. 823; *Smith v. State,*166 Ala. 24, 52 South. 396; *Harper v. State,*13 Ala. App. 47, 69 South. 302.

(2) Section 3020, Code 1907, forbidding appellate courts to strike a bill of exceptions mero motu, applies tó the unseasonable signing by the judge, and not to the unseasonable presentation of the bill to *him.*— Box *v. South. Ry. Co., supra; Harper’s Case, supra; Hartselle & Co. v. Wilhite, supra.*

In the absence of a bill of exceptions, there is no question presented for our review. The judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### §§ 61.135-61.141 [Reserved]
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 31, 2016

Decided June 1, 2016

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 15

‐ 2802

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v

.

GILBERTO MIGUEL LAUREANO,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 10 CR 772

J ames B. Zagel,

J udge

.

O R D E R

Gilberto Laureano pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to distribute and to possess with

the intent to distribute 9.7 kilograms of heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), after he enlisted a

co

‐ conspirator to drive with him to Mexico, pick up heroin, and drive back to Chicago

with the drugs. Laureano was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, the statutory

minimum, and 5 years’ supervised release. Although his plea agreement included a

broad appeal waiver, Laureano appealed. His lawyer asserts that the appeal is frivolous

and seeks to withdraw. See Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We invited

Laureano to comment on counsel’s motion, but he has not responded. See C IR

. R. 51(b).

Counsel has submitted a brief that explains the nature of the case and addresses the NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp

. P. 32.1No. 15

‐ 2802 Page 2

issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Because counsel’s

analysis appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that counsel

discusses. See United States v. Bey

, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v.

Wagner

, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).

Counsel tells us that Laureano does not wish to challenge his guilty plea, and thus

we do not discuss the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of Laureano’s plea

colloquy. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11; United States v. Konczak

, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012);

United States v. Knox

, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002). It follows, counsel properly

explains, that any challenge to Laureano’s sentence would be frivolous. Because an

appeal waiver stands or falls with the guilty plea, see United States v. Zitt

, 714 F.3d 511,

515 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Sakellarion

, 649 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2011), we must

enforce Laureano’s waiver. The district court did not rely on any impermissible factors

in sentencing, and Laureano’s sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum of life.

See Dowell v. United States

, 694 F.3d 898, 902 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Bownes

,

405 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2005). And the waiver forecloses any challenge to Laureano’s

conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Campbell

, 813 F.3d 1016, 1018

(7th Cir. 2016). If Laureano encounters problems with these conditions when supervised

release begins, he may seek modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). See Campbell

,

813 F.3d at 1019; United States v. Neal

, 810 F.3d 512, 514 (7th Cir. 2016).

We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 Certification
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.
 
 
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of BIO-TRACKING SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.
        (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I,
        Jean-Francois Amyot, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act
        of 2001, that:
 
 The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: October
                  6, 2005
                By:
                /s/ Jean-Francois
                  AmyotJean-Francois
                    Amyot
                  Chief
                    Accounting Officer
§ 1209.08 Transcripts, recordings or minutes of closed meetings; retention; public availability. ( a ) For every meeting or portion thereof closed under the provisions of § 1209.05, the presiding officer shall prepare a statement setting forth the time and place of the meeting and the persons present, which statement shall be retained by the agency. For each such meeting or portion thereof there also shall be maintained a complete transcript or electronic recording of the proceedings, except that for meetings closed pursuant to § 1209.05(a) the Board may, in lieu of a transcript or electronic recording, maintain a set of minutes fully and accurately summarizing any action taken, the reason therefor and views thereof, documents considered, and the members' vote on each roll call vote.
( b ) The agency shall maintain a complete verbatim transcript, a complete electronic recording, or a complete set of minutes for each meeting or portion thereof closed to public observation, for a period of at least one year after the close of the agency proceeding of which the meeting was a part, but in no event for a period of less than two years after such meeting.
( c ) The agency shall make promptly available to the public copies of transcripts, electronic recordings or minutes maintained as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, except to the extent the items therein contain information which the agency determines may be withheld pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).
( d ) Upon request in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph and except to the extent they contain information which the agency determines may be withheld pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), copies of transcripts or minutes, or transcriptions of electronic recordings including the identification of speakers, shall be furnished subject to the payment of duplication costs in accordance with the schedule of fees set forth in § 1208.06 of the Board's Rules, and the actual cost of transcription. Requests for copies of transcripts or minutes, or transcriptions of electronic recordings of Board meetings shall be directed to the Chief of Staff, National Mediation Board, Washington, DC 20572. Such requests shall reasonably identify the records sought and include a statement that whatever costs are involved in furnishing the records will be acceptable or, alternatively, that costs will be acceptable up to a specified amount. The Board may determine to require prepayment of such costs.
[42 FR 60739, Nov. 29, 1977, as amended at 64 FR 40287, July 26, 1999]
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3724 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3724

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 2004

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend section 220 of the National Housing Act to make a technical 
   correction to restore allowable increases in the maximum mortgage 
 limits for FHA-insured mortgages for multifamily housing projects to 
     cover increased costs of installing a solar energy system or 
               residential energy conservation measures.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Efficient Housing Technical 
Correction Act''.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

    Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii)(V) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(V)) is amended by striking ``with respect to 
rehabilitation projects involving not more than five family units,''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 3, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Resolution Trust Corporation Funding Act of 1991

              														Resolution Trust Corporation Funding Act of 1991, March 23, 1991.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1086,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Alfred C. Giammarino, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company");

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:



5.     The
Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors
and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 5, 2009

/s/ ALFRED C. GIAMMARINOAlfred C. Giammarino Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12447]



[[Page 31614]]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Design, Manufacture, and Industrial 
Innovation; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Design, manufacture, and 
Industrial Innovation--(1194).
    Date and Time: June 5-8, and June 13-14, 2000, 8 am-5:30 pm.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Kamalakar Rajurkar, Program Director, 
Manufacturing Machines, and Equipment, (703) 306-1330, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Unsolicited proposals as part of 
the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 522b(c)(4) and (6) of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act.


    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12447 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
§ 89.415 Rescission. ( a ) *Rescission of an FAA-accepted means of compliance.* ( 1 ) A means of compliance is subject to ongoing review by the Administrator. The Administrator may rescind acceptance of a means of compliance if the Administrator determines that a means of compliance does not meet any or all of the requirements of subpart D or E of this part.
( 2 ) The Administrator will publish a notice of rescission in the Federal Register.
( b ) *Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter.* Part 13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of paragraph (a) of this section.
/ 

I 

,.- I 

1 

I 

i 

! 

! 

.; 

! 

i 

, 8. 

1 

I 

i 

: 

! 

I 

I 

! 

ii 

I’ OFFICE OF THE ATTOXNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Lh t AUSTIN 

:j. 

. 'II 


I 

.A. 

. \ 1
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v GAUTHIER

Case No. 87-0077AC (County Court Case No. 87-010102MM10)

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County

July 10, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

James P. McLane, Assistant State Attorney, for appellant.

John G. George, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERT B. CARNEY, Circuit Judge.

THIS CAUSE having come before this Court upon Appellant’s appeal of the Trial Court’s Order to Discharge for Speedy Trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(2), and the Court having received and reviewed appellate briefs, and being fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law:

FINDINGS OF FACTS:

1. On or about March 16, 1986 the Appellee was arrested and charged by information with driving under the influence and driving while his license was revoked or suspended, contrary to Florida Statute 316.193 and 322.34.

*182. On April 15, 1987 the State nole prosequi the March 16 information. A month later, on May 7, 1987 Appellee filed a demand for speedy trial pursuant to Fla. Rule of Crim. Proc. 3.191(2)(2).

3. The State refiled its information on May 13, 1987. On August 14, 1987 Appellee filed for a motion for discharge for denial of a speedy trial. An Order granting the discharge was filed on August 21, 1987.

BASED ON THE FOREGOING THIS COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

A. The Trial Court’s grant of Appellee’s discharge pursuant to Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.191(a)(2) for denial of a speedy trial was reversible error. A defendant is unable to demand a speedy trial prior to the filing of an information or indictment. *State ex rel. Butler v Cullen,*253 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1971), *State v Rembert,*284 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), *State v Branam,*434 So.2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In the present case an information was filed on March 16, 1987. However, the State’s filing of the nole prosequi on April 15, 1987 served to purge the record.

B. Appellee filed the demand for speedy trial on May 7, 1987, six (6) days prior to the State’s refiling of the information. Filing a demand for speedy trial prior to the filing of the information is a nullity. *Stte v Hill, 299*So.2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), *State v Smith,*444 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Therefore the Appellee’s demand for speedy trial did not operate to commence running of the time period under the Speedy Trial rule. Since there was no information in existence at the time the demand was filed on May 7, the demand is in essence a nullity.

WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Trial Court’s Order Discharging the Appellee is hereby reversed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at the Broward County Courthouse, 201 Southeast Sixth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida 33301, this 10th day of July, 1989.
#### § 1602.30 Records to be made or kept.

On or before September 30, 1974, and annually thereafter, every political jurisdiction with 15 or more employees is required to make or keep records and the information therefrom which are or would be necessary for the completion of report EEO-4 under the circumstances set forth in the instructions thereto, whether or not the political jurisdiction is required to file such report under § 1602.32 of the regulations in this part. The instructions are specifically incorporated herein by reference and have the same force and effect as other sections of this part.[1] Such reports and the information therefrom shall be retained at all times for a period of 3 years at the central office of the political jurisdiction and shall be made available if requested by an officer, agent, or employee of the Commission under section 710 of title VII, as amended. Although agency data are aggregated by functions for purposes of reporting, separate data for each agency must be maintained either by the agency itself or by the office of the political jurisdiction responsible for preparing the EEO-4 form. It is the responsibility of every political jurisdiction to obtain from the Commission or its delegate necessary instructions in order to comply with the requirements of this section.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046-0008)

[38 FR 12604, May 14, 1973, as amended at 39 FR 30832, Aug. 26, 1974; 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981]

###### Footnotes -
  1602.30

[1] Note: Instructions were published as an appendix to the proposed regulations on Mar. 2, 1973 (38 FR 5662).