alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40202 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDDIE SNELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-00-319-1

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

August 31, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Eddie Snell has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Snell has filed a response to

counsel’s motion to withdraw, requesting new counsel on appeal, 

and has filed a motion for an extension of time to file an

appellate brief. These motions are DENIED. 

Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Snell’s response,

and the record discloses no nonfrivolous appellate issue. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
No. 01-40202 

-2-

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00129- CR
Corinne Chapa Klinzm ann, Ap pellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR-20 10- 289, H ONO RAB LE JACK H . RO B ISO N, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Corinne Chapa Klinzm ann has filed a notice of appea l from her conviction f o ll o w in g a p le a o f g

u il ty to th e o f

f e n s e o f b u r g la r y o f a h a b it a ti o n . S e e T e x. Pe n a l Co d e A nn . § 3 0
. 0 2 (West 2011). The district court has cer tified that this is a plea- barg ain case , Klinzm ann has no rig ht of appea l, and Klinzm ann has waived t h e ri gh t of appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a) (2), (d). Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and H enson Dismissed Filed: Aug ust 28, 2012 Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MERCURY
GENERAL CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           954,108
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                     148,112
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,168,287
<CASH>                                           3,605
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          46,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,419,927
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                336,685
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            260,878
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 75,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,644
<OTHER-SE>                                     598,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,419,927
<PREMIUMS>                                     754,724
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             70,180
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (3,173)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   3,233
<BENEFITS>                                     501,858
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    160,019
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            24,493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                136,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,826
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            105,764
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   105,764
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.84
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 250,990
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            529,957
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              (3,868)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             298,099
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               167,226
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                311,754
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                          3,868
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 108 (Monday, June 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13908]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site, Dutchess, 
New York; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and 
Master Plan Amendment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National 
Park Service (NPS) has prepared a Draft Master Plan Amendment/
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt 
NHS, located in Dutchess County, New York. The purpose of the EA is to 
describe plans to build a visitor and education/conference center 
jointly with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to 
serve the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt NHS and the Franklin D. 
Roosevelt Library. Appended to the EA is a Memorandum of Agreement 
(MOA), in draft, guiding historic preservation in the development of 
the project. The EA describes the alternatives for the proposed center. 
The EA will serve to update the 1977 Master Plan and Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt 
NHS with respect to visitor orientation and parking. Further, the EA 
provides an analysis of the environmental consequences of the 
alternatives. The alternatives are compared and contrasted in terms of 
their impacts on the cultural, historic, and natural environment.
    Copies of the document are available for review at the following 
locations:

--Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt NHS, 4097 Albany Post Rd., Hyde Park, 
NY
--Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 4079 Albany Post Rd., Hyde Park, NY
--The Hyde Park Public Library

    Copies of the EA may be requested from either: Superintendent, Home 
of Franklin D. Roosevelt NHS, 4097 Albany Post Road, Hyde Park, New 
York, 12538-1997, (914) 229-9115, or Director, Franklin D. Roosevelt 
Library, 4079 Albany Post Rd., Hyde Park, New York, 12538-1997, (914) 
229-8114.
    Written comments will be accepted at either of the above addresses 
through June 23, 2000. The NPS and NARA will jointly hold a public 
meeting on June 8, 2000, at 7 p.m. to explain the alternatives. The 
meeting will be held at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 4079 Albany 
Post Rd., Hyde Park, New York, and will include opportunities for 
public comment on the project. After analyzing the comments from the 
meeting and those submitted in writing during the comment period, the 
agencies will make a decision on the course of action.

Sarah Olson,
Superintendent.
[FR Doc. 00-13908 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
EXHIBIT 23.1 

 

Independent Auditors’ Consent

 

The Board of Directors 

Mercury General Corporation: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.333-62228) on Form S-3 of Mercury General Corporation and the registration statement (No. 333-01583) on Form S-8 of Mercury General Corporation of our report dated February 2, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Mercury GeneralCorporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2003,and all related financial statement schedules, which report appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Mercury General Corporation. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

LosAngeles, California 

February 23, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA MARY PETITE, in her

capacity as personal representative for the

Estate of CARL PETITE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-55314

D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00543-GJS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Gail J. Standish, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 15, 2017** 

Pasadena, California

Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and LOGAN,*** District Judge.

FILED

DEC 08 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Steven Paul Logan, United States District Judge for

the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Martha Mary Petite appeals a district court order affirming the denial of an

application filed by her late husband, Carl Petite, for disability insurance benefits

under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291, and we review the district court’s order de novo. Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d

1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. 

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the administrative law

judge (“ALJ”) concluded that Petite was capable of performing “other work that

exists in significant numbers in the national economy.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d

1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); 20 C.F.R. §

404.1520(a)(v). Petite was unable to perform the full range of “medium work”

under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) because of his

significant nonexertional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2; 20

C.F.R. § 404.1569a(c). As a result, the ALJ properly consulted a vocational

expert, who testified that Petite could perform work as a data entry clerk. See

Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1102–04. There are 272,810 positions for a data entry clerk in

the national economy. The ALJ’s step-five determination is supported by

substantial evidence, and is not legally erroneous. See Hoopai, 499 F.3d at 1074. 

Petite argues that the ALJ’s application of Guidelines section 203.08 was

erroneous because he could not perform the full range of “medium work.” See 20

2
C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 203.08. However, in addition to relying on a

vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ was permitted to use the “medium work”

grid as a “framework” for decision-making since Petite’s exertional limitations

match the definition of “medium work.” See Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152,

1155 (9th Cir. 1989); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 200.00(e)(2); 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1567(c).

AFFIRMED.

3
Exhibit 10.70

                             STOCK PLEDGE AGREEMENT

                                October 31, 2001

Robert Farias
3436 Verdugo Road, Suite 250
Glendale, CA 91208

Dear Robert,

In consideration  for the loan you, Robert Farias,  a Texas resident,  agreed to
make to Vertical Computer  Systems,  Inc. ("VCSY") (the "Loan") on the terms set
forth in the Loan  Documents,  including  the two  Promissory  Notes (the "First
Promissory Note" and the "Second  Promissory Note"), the Stock Pledge Agreement,
and other loan  documents,  Mountain  Reservoir Corp  ("MRC"hereby  agree to the
following:

1. Upon our receipt of your loan to VCSY $100,000,  MRC hereby pledges 5,225,000
shares of VCSY common stock (the  "Shares")  owned by MRC to pay any amounts due
in the  event of a default  on the First  Promissory  Note  issued by VCSY.  The
Shares  shall be held by the Law  Offices of Gary  Blum.  In the event that VCSY
fails to pay  monies  in  accordance  with  the  First  Promissory  Note and the
Collateral  as  set  forth  and  defined  in  the  Stock  Pledge   Agreement  is
insufficient to cover any shortfall,  the number of "Shares"  necessary to cover
the amount of any default on the First Promissory Note shall be sold.

2. In the event that you loan VCSY an additional  $100,000 and all right, title,
and interest to the property identified in the Asset Purchase  Agreement,  dated
October  31,  2001 is  transferred  to VCSY,  MRC hereby  pledges an  additional
5,225,000  shares of VCSY common  stock (the  "Shares")  owned by MRC to pay any
amounts  due in the event of a default on the Second  Promissory  Note issued by
VCSY.  The Shares  shall be held by the Law  Offices of Gary Blum.  In the event
that VCSY fails to pay monies in accordance with the Second  Promissory Note and
the  Collateral  as set  forth and  defined  in the Stock  Pledge  Agreement  is
insufficient to cover any shortfall,  the number of "Shares"  necessary to cover
the amount of any default on the Second Promissory Note shall be sold.

If the foregoing  meets with your  approval,  please sign in the space  provided
below. Thank you.


                                   Sincerely,

                                    ---------------------------
                                    Frank Mento, President
                                    Mountain Reservoir Corp.

---------------------------
Robert Farias
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

HARVEY M. HILL
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3615

[ November 15, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Cheryl Caracuzzo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 20 15

- CF

001889

- A XXX

- MB.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, C IKLIN and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Derry District Court

No. 7735

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Wallace E. Ramsden

October 17, 1977

*David H. Souter,*attorney general, and *Anne E. Cagwin,*attorney *(Miss Cagwin*orally), for the State of New Hampshire.

*Tefft & Thayer,*of Manchester *(Stephen W. Thayer III*orally), for the defendant.

*773BOIS, J.

Interlocutory appeal on the transfer without ruling by *StanciJc,*J., of a question of law arising out of a motion to suppress evidence on the ground that the defendant had incorrectly been informed of the consequences of his refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test.

In accordance with RSA 262-A:69-c and -e (Supp. 1975), the defendant was warned at the time of his arrest that his license would automatically be revoked for a period of ninety days if he refused to take a breathalyzer test. He contends that he was (wrongfully) not told of RSA 262-A:69-m (Supp. 1975), providing in pertinent part that “[t]he director . . . *may*in his discretion reissue a license . . . prior to the expiration of ninety days when such person is not found guilty of a violation of RSA 262-A:62.” (Emphasis added.) He argues that the language of RSA 262-A:69-c(3), which directs a law enforcement officer to inform an arrested person “of the consequences of his refusal to permit a test,” mandates that he should have been informed of this discretionary reinstatement procedure.

We are not persuaded by these contentions. The defendant overlooks the fact that the legislature has specifically provided a warning which is sufficient to inform an arrested person of the consequences of refusing to submit to a test. That warning, contained in RSA 262-A:69-e(6) (Supp. 1975), is that “refusal to permit the test will result in revocation of his license. . . .” If the legislature had wanted an arrested person to be advised of all possible consequences, it could have so legislated. This it did not do but instead required only the advice of the outer penalty of refusal, *i.e.*revocation. This mandate was satisfied in the instant case.

We hold that the warning given the defendant satisfied the requirements of the statute.

*Remanded.*

Kenison, C. J., did not sit; the others concurred.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0404 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TYLIN JAMES WEBER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 30, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 21 2022

11/21/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0404
Editorial Note on Part 150
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 150.619 What are the fall arrest system requirements? ( a ) The deepwater port operator must ensure that all personnel who are exposed to the risk of falling more than 6 feet, or who are at risk of falling any distance onto equipment with irregular surfaces, exposed moving components, electrically energized cables or connectors, or water, are protected against such a fall by guardrails or other measures that comply with 29 CFR 1910.23 or 1910.28, or by the use of suitable lifesaving equipment that complies with 46 CFR part 160.
( b ) In addition, the operator must take measures to control the risk of falling, tripping, or slipping in work areas and walkways due to the presence of loose material or wet conditions, including spills.
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Day 1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14

% recovery

TestAmerica Denver Acrylonitrile / Acrolein Stability Study

Acrolein pH 7

Acrylonitrile pH7

Acrolein pH2

Acrylonitrile pH2
pH = 7 Spiked at 50ppb

Acrolein ppb Acrylonitrile ppn

Acrolein mean % 

rec

Acrylonitrile 

mean % rec

Day 1 62.4 50.6 116.25 100.45

59.4 50.3

52.7 48.2

58 51.8

Day 3 44.7 45.1 96.75 96.4

48.6 46.4

50.2 50.4

50 50.9

Day 7 42.9 45.4 84.4 97.15

44.2 52.6

44.2 52.6

37.5 43.7

Day 14 42.7 58.7 89.55 112.4

43.7 52.3

48.6 54.4

44.1 59.4

pH = <2 

Day 1 52.1 47.3 108.5 96.25

50.1 47.7

57.9 49.4

56.9 48.1

Day 3 33 50 61.6 96.65

34.1 49.9

30 47.8

26.1 45.6

Day 7 24.1 50.7 44.3 103.15

21.5 48.9

19.9 51.1

23.1 55.6

Day 14 19.1 52.1 39.3 113.95

21.6 62.4

20.2 59.5

17.7 53.9
#### § 127.303 Compliance with suspension order.

If an order to suspend is given to the operator or owner of the waterfront facility handling LNG, no LNG transfer operations may be conducted at the facility until the order is withdrawn by the COTP.

[CGD 78-038, 53 FR 3376, Feb. 7, 1988, as amended by CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39796, Aug. 3, 1995]
p. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 84 ) IV-C-5

0 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:55AM Sheet 84 of 232P. 2



### ' ^° S 

### X 

# U R \m*e 

### X UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON

, D.C
. 2046 0 

### FE B 

### 2 198

3

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N

Honorabl e Georg e W . Darde n United State s Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Darden : Than k you for passin

g alon g the comment s o f Mr . Richard Cob bconcernin

g EPA' s proposa l t o requir e onboar d refuelin

g emissio n controls . Be assure d tha t thes e comment s wil l b e | considered a s w

e prepar e ou

r fina l rule . W

e wil l als o b e * placin g the m i n th e publi c docke t fo

r the rulemakin

g (Docke t No * A-87-11) . Than k yo u agai n fo

r your concer

ni nthi s matter . Sincerel y

yours , ORIGINA L SIGNE D B Y RICHARD D . WILSO N Richar dD
. Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s c c : Docke t

A-87-1 1 SEK Xbcc : Regio

n0 4 Congressiona l Liaison/Quin n
Prepare d by : for

m Letter:sal:l/27/88:AL88032 8 - ECTD , An nArbor , M I
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Vincent G. Easi,certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofFirst Ottawa Bancshares, Inc.;

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

3.                                        Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                                        Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)                                         Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)                                        Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)                                         Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting, and;

5.                                        Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

a)                                      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and

b)                                    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: March 25, 2007 |   | /s/ Vincent G. Easi     |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 |   | Vincent G. Easi         |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----