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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6882

WILLIAM PAUL RAMEY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections; TRACY RAY, Warden;

JERRY KILGORE, Attorney General of the State

of Virginia,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

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

District Judge. (CA-05-134-7)

Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 28, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Gray Gilliam, Sr., GILLIAM LAW OFFICE, PC, Norton, Virginia,

for Appellant

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Paul Ramey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket

on May 3, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on June 3, 2005.

Because Ramey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
§ 1981.105 Issuance of findings and preliminary orders. ( a ) After considering all the relevant information collected during the investigation, the Assistant Secretary shall issue, within 60 days of filing of the complaint, written findings as to whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe that the named person has discriminated against the complainant in violation of the Act. ( 1 ) If the Assistant Secretary concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, he or she shall accompany the findings with a preliminary order providing relief to the complainant. The preliminary order shall include, where appropriate, a requirement that the named person abate the violation; reinstatement of the complainant to his or her former position, together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions and privileges of the complainant's employment; and payment of compensatory damages. Where the named person establishes that the complainant is a security risk (whether or not the information is obtained after the complainant's discharge), a preliminary order of reinstatement would not be appropriate. At the complainant's request the order shall also assess against the named person the complainant's costs and expenses (including attorney's and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred in connection with the filing of the complaint.
( 2 ) If the Assistant Secretary concludes that a violation has not occurred, the Assistant Secretary will notify the parties of that finding.
( b ) The findings and the preliminary order will be sent by means that allow OSHA to confirm delivery to all parties of record. The letter accompanying the findings and order will inform the parties of their right to file objections and to request a hearing, and of the right of the named person to request attorney's fees from the administrative law judge, regardless of whether the named person has filed objections, if the named person alleges that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith. The letter also will give the address of the Chief Administrative Law Judge or appropriate information regarding filing objections electronically with the Office of Administrative Law Judges. At the same time, the Assistant Secretary will file with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, a copy of the original complaint and a copy of the findings and order.
( c ) The findings and the preliminary order will be effective 60 days after receipt by the named person pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, unless an objection and a request for a hearing has been filed as provided at § 1981.106. However, the portion of any preliminary order requiring reinstatement will be effective immediately upon receipt of the findings and preliminary order.
[69 FR 17591, Apr. 5, 2004, as amended at 86 FR 1790, Jan. 11, 2021]
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Petty, Chafin and Senior Judge Annunziata 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/ 

 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 

v. Record No. 0377-13-1 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 6, 2013 

JOHNICAL M. OWENS 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Wesley G. Russell, Jr., 

Deputy Attorney General; Peter R. Messitt, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Scott John Fitzgerald, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Joseph A. Miller; Joe Miller Law Ltd., on brief), for appellee. 

 The Department of Social Services/Commonwealth of Virginia (“employer”) appeals a 

decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the commission”) denying employer’s 

request for a termination of the award of benefits and finding employer had a gross subrogation 

interest for medical and indemnity expenses of an amount less than the amount claimed by 

employer. Employer argues the commission erred in: (1) not terminating the benefits award of 

Johnical M. Owens when Owens settled an underlying tort suit without the consent of the 

employer; (2) not including temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits awarded in 

the October 2005 claim in the amount owed to employer in satisfaction of its workers’ 

compensation lien and subrogation interest; and (3) not awarding to employer the full amount of 

its workers’ compensation lien and subrogation interest as a credit against future benefits. We 

have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See 

Owens v. Department of Soc. Servs./Commonwealth of Virginia, JCN 228-59-65 (Jan. 29, 

2013). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not 

aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,362,990
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          24,955,584
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                         0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,697,632
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          68,231,508
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            65,422,922
<LOANS>                                        231,777,001
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,474,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 353,967,151
<DEPOSITS>                                     243,824,380
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,167,261
<LONG-TERM>                                     20,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        28,943,390
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,032,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 353,967,151
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,556,108
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,284,506
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   383,617
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,224,231
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,334,399
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,446,436
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,777,795
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                       0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,246,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,479,189
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,914,189
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.96
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        3.14
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,181,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                             0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,454,373
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      164,645
<RECOVERIES>                                         4,752
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,474,480
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,474,480
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                  0


</TABLE>
#### WEST SIDE LUMBER CO v SAYLOR

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No 967.

Decided Sept. 24, 1930

Ozias & Ozias and W. S. Rhotehamel, all of Dayton, for Plaintiff in Error.

I. L. Holderman, Kreitzer & Ratchford and Charles Dale, all of Dayton, for Defendant in Error.

BY THE COURT

We And no conflict in the decision in this case with any former opinion of this ■ court.

On the application for rehearing counsel for defendant in error urged certain claims respecting the decision. Objection is made to the expressions' concerning the claim of waiver.

An examination of the opinion at page 3 discloses that by inadvertence certain errors appear. The term plaintiff in error is used where defendant in error was meant. We purposed to say that the contention of counsel for plaintiff in error concerning the burden of proof on the claim of waiver was upon him who asserted it, namely, the defendant in error, George W. Saylor, and that the Court, having found for Saylor, must have properly applied the rule of evidence relating thereto. However, the plaintiff in error can have no complaint against the holding of this Court concerning the claim of waiver because, as indicated in the opinion, we differed with the trial court on this question and would have held with plaintiff in error in its contention on this matter had it been controlling. We adhere to our former opinion concerning the claim that the judgment for money rendered by Judge White was not determinative of the issue presented between Saylor and the plaintiff in error touching the validity of the lien.

The money judgment for the plaintiff against Holtzmuller and Seibolt was based upon a determination that plaintiff had sold and transferred to them the ownership of the merchandise set up in the account attached to the petition; the place where delivered, though it may have incidently appeared, was not a controlling factor. To this judgment Saylor was not a party, and could not and did not make any defense.

The vital question in this case was whether or not the last delivery of lumber by the plaintiff in error to the building on the real estate described in the petition was made within 60 days prior to the filing of the affidavit. On this question of fact we held that the trial court had the right to determine the case as it did.

We see no reason why we should not adhere to our former decision and this will be done. The motion and .application will therefore be overruled.

Kunkle, PJ, Allread and Hornbeck, JJ, concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-93251, Form S-8 No. 033-62443, Form S-8 No. 333-12585, Form
S-8 No. 333-46953, Form S-8 No. 333-61911 and Form S-8 No. 333-51330) pertaining
to The Lamson & Sessions Co. Nonemployee Directors Stock Option Plan, the
Deferred Compensation Plan for Nonemployee Directors, The Lamson & Sessions Co.
Deferred Savings Plan, the 1998 Incentive Equity Plan, and in the Registration
Statement and related Prospectus (Form S-3 No. 333-65795) of the Lamson &
Sessions Co. of our report dated January 30, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Lamson & Session Co.,
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 30, 2000.



                                                      ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
February 23, 2001


                                       1
[Civ. No. 1958.

Second Appellate District.

November 16, 1917.]

#### BELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. W. A. MARSHALL, Appellant.

Corporation Law—Becovery on Unpaid Stock Subscription—Pleading—Insufficient Complaint.—In an action for an unpaid subscription to the capital stock of a corporation, the complaint fails to state a cause of action where there is no allegation that the plaintiff had followed and exhausted the procedure laid down in section 331 et seq. of the Civil Code.

Id.—Collection of Stock Subscriptions—Procedure.-—In this state, where the contract of subscription for stock is silent as to the time and manner of payment, calls for unpaid subscriptions are placed in the same class with assessments upon paid-up shares, and the provisions of section 331 et seq. of the Civil Code provide a complete scheme for the making of collections of each of the two kinds of obligations.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County. W. H. Thomas, Judge Presiding.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Childers & Bruce, for Appellant.

Herbert L. Iasigi, for Respondent.

WORKS, J., pro tem.

This is an action for an unpaid subscription to the capital stock of respondent corporation. The appellant interposed a general demurrer to the second amended complaint, the demurrer was overruled, and, the *325appellant standing on the issue of law and refusing to answer, the respondent had judgment.

The pleading of the respondent alleges an ordinary demand for the payment of the subscription and the appellant’s refusal to comply with the *demand;*but there is no allegation that the respondent has attempted to follow the provisions of section 331 of the Civil Code and those coming after it. In this state, where the contract of subscription for stock is silent as to the time and manner of payment, calls for unpaid subscriptions are placed in the same class with assessments upon paid-up shares, and the above-mentioned sections of the code provide a complete scheme for the making of collections of each of the two kinds of obligations. Suits cannot be commenced until the procedure there laid down has been exhausted, and in such a suit the complaint must show that the j>rocedure has been followed. *(Los Angeles Athletic Club*v. Spires, 166 Cal. 173, [135 Pac. 298]; *Imperial Land & S. Co.*v. *Oster,*34 Cal. App. 776, [168 Pac. 1159].)

The judgment is reversed, with directions to the trial court to sustain the demurrer.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12031]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[I.D. 050800C]


Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Information Collection; 
Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: StormReady Application Form.
    Agency Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: None.
    Type of Request: Emergency.
    Burden Hours: 40.
    Number of Respondents: 40.
    Average Hours Per Response: 1.
    Needs and Uses: StormReady is a community-recognition program for 
emergency management. The StormReady Application Form allows the 
National Weather Service to collect the information needed to recognize 
communities that are sufficiently prepared for adverse weather before 
an event happens.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.
    Frequency: On occasion, biennial.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5027, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e68a838881838a8b83a6828985c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92fef7fcf5f7fefff7d2f6fdf1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: May 5, 2000.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12031 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-KE-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From:•King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov

Sent:•Monday, August 09, 2010 9:50 PM To:•Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov Cc:•Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov; Talcott.Fred@epamail.epa.gov; horowitz.michael@epamail.epa.gov Subject:•engine cost info Attachments:•EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0195.pdf; EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0668 - National Impacts.pdf

Cortney, one of the items requested on the call today was information on engine costs. See the far right column in Table 5 of the attached national impacts memo. The information is a little old but gives you a ballpark idea. Also attached is another reference we have. (See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0195.pdf)(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0668 - National Impacts.pdf)

Melanie King Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-2469 Fax: (919) 541-5450 king.melanie@epa.gov
**Exhibit 32.2**

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of

**HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

| 3.     | Horizon Bancorporation, Inc’s Quarterly Report on   Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, to which this certification   is attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the   requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of   1934; and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| 4.     | The information contained in the Report fairly   presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of   operations of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.                                                                                                                                   |

|                                              |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Kathleen M. Jepson                                |   |
|                                                   |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                              |   |
| May 10, 2006                                      |   |

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136312 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 136312 COA: 275209 Macomb CC: 2005-005152-FC LEE PREMISE MANUEL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 11, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0721 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.

July 29, 2008

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Willie George GORSUCH, Chester O’Neal Teasley, Titus Philemon Brown, James Edward Warren; Willie George Gorsuch, Appellant.

No. 16284.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted June 5, 1967.

Decided June 15, 1967.

Willie George Gorsuch, pro se.

Don Allen Resnikoff, Plainfield, N. J.> David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for appellee.

Before STALEY, Chief Judge, KALODNER, Circuit Judge, and SHERIDAN, District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT.

PER CURIAM.

On review of the record we are of the opinion that the record amply sustains the District Court’s holding that the appellant’s motion for reduction of sentence was without merit. The Order of the District Court denying the motion will be affirmed.

It merits observation that the District Court advised the appellant of its disposition of his motion in an “Opinion Letter”. We are of the view that disposition by an “Opinion Letter” is not a desirable practice. A Memorandum Opinion would more adequately conform to established procedure.