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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1365

In Re: CHRISTOPHER LEE NEAL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:94-cr-00300-JAB-2; 1:08-cv-00458-JAB-WWD)

Submitted: July 21, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Lee Neal, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Lee Neal petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his habeas petition. He seeks an order from this court directing

the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny as moot the motion to expedite and deny the mandamus petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


Summary Sheet of


Non-employee Director
Compensation


 


March 15, 2006


 


Effective
January 1, 2006


 


1.                                      Board of Directors


 


	
  Annual Retainer

  	
   

  	
  $30,000 (from $25K)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  In-person meeting fee

  	
   

  	
    $1,500 (no change)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Telephone meetings*

  	
   

  	
    $1,000 (from $0)

  



 


2.                                      Audit Committee


 


	
  Chair annual retainer

  	
   

  	
  $10,000 (from $5K)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Member retainer

  	
   

  	
    $2,500 (from $0)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  In-person meeting fee

  	
   

  	
    $1,250 (no change)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Telephone meetings*

  	
   

  	
    $1,000 (from $0)

  



 


3.                                      Compensation Committee


 


	
  Chair annual retainer**

  	
   

  	
  $5,000 (from $0)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Member retainer

  	
   

  	
         $0 (no change)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  In-person meeting fee

  	
   

  	
  $1,250 (no change)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Telephone meetings*

  	
   

  	
  $1,000 (from $0)

  



 


4.                                      Nominating and Corporate
Governance Committee


 


	
  Chair annual retainer**

  	
   

  	
  $5,000 (from $0)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Member retainer

  	
   

  	
         $0
  (no change)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  In-person meeting fee

  	
   

  	
  $1,250 (no change)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Telephone meetings*

  	
   

  	
  $1,000 (from $0)

  



 


Payment shall be made for each committee meeting attended even if
attending more than one committee meeting on the same day.


 






*
in excess of one hour


**
only one retainer will be paid if chairing more than one committee (higher
retainer paid)
§ 236.513 Audible indicator. ( a ) The automatic cab signal system shall be so arranged that when the cab signal changes to display a more restrictive aspect, an audible indicator will sound continuously until silenced by manual operation of an acknowledging device.
( b ) The audible cab indicator of automatic cab signal, automatic train stop, or automatic train control system shall have a distinctive sound and be clearly audible throughout the cab under all operating conditions.
[49 FR 3386, Jan. 26, 1984]
#### § 234.205 Operating characteristics of warning system apparatus.

Operating characteristics of electromagnetic, electronic, or electrical apparatus of each highway-rail crossing warning system shall be maintained in accordance with the limits within which the system is designed to operate.
[MULTIPLIER] 1
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                              PAB BANKSHARES, INC.
                              --------------------


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                              MARCH 31,
                                                      -------------------------
                                                         2000           1999
                                                      ----------     ----------
<S>                                                   <C>           <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:
------------------------
  Average shares outstanding                           9,574,465     9,609,307
                                                      ==========    ==========

Diluted Earnings Per Share:
--------------------------
  Average shares outstanding                           9,574,465     9,609,307
                                                      ----------    ----------
  Average options outstanding:
    With exercise price of $6.250                        128,000       144,000
    With exercise price of $6.67                           3,677         7,353
    With exercise price of $10.063                       130,600       131,250
    With exercise price of $12.063                        44,600        47,500
    With exercise price of $14.00                              0        10,000





                                                      ----------    ----------
  Proceeds from assumed exercise of options
    outstanding                                       $2,676,764     2,982,806
  Average market price per share during the period    $    12.96         17.10
                                                      ----------    ----------

  Assumed shares repurchased                             206,533       174,427
                                                      ----------   -----------

  Common stock equivalents of options outstanding        100,344       165,676
                                                      ----------    ----------

  Average shares outstanding                           9,674,809     9,774,983
                                                      ==========    ==========

Earnings Per Share:
------------------
  Net Income                                          $2,124,389     2,042,764
                                                      ==========    ==========

  Basic Earnings Per Share                            $      .22           .21
                                                      ==========    ==========

  Diluted Earnings Per Share                          $      .22           .21
                                                      ==========    ==========

</TABLE>
#### Union Dime Savings Bank, *Respondent, v.*Mary J. Quinn, *Appellants.*—

Judgment affirmed. ■ Opinions by

Brady and Daniels, JJ.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, September 25, 1995 (120), Para 120.10 Additional Sponsors]
[Page 1451]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.120.10  additional sponsors

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 390: Mrs. Myrick.
       H.R. 427: Mr. Martini.
       H.R. 709: Mr. Holden.
       H.R. 852: Mr. Owens.
       H.R. 1024: Mr. Martini.
       H.R. 1514: Mr. Martini, Mr. Zeliff, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Wilson, 
     Mr. Andrews, Mr. Baker of Louisiana, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Clay, 
     Ms. McKinney, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kingston, Mr. 
     Barr, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, and 
     Mr. Lightfoot.
       H.R. 1619: Mr. Fox and Mr. Bilbray.
       H.R. 1627: Mr. Andrews.
       H.R. 1762: Mr. Jacobs.
       H.R. 1802: Mr. Cramer.
       H.R. 1900: Mr. Lucas and Ms. Danner.
       H.R. 1974: Mr. Royce.
       H.R. 2137: Mr. Ballenger.
       H.R. 2333: Mr. Jacobs.
```
#### R. P. Reeves v. The State.

*No. 488.*

*Decided February 23.*

Gaming—Public Place.—On a conviction for “playing cards in a ‘dngont,’ where people commonly resorted for gaming purposes,” and where the proof showed that the dngont, while disconnected from a saloon, was used for the purpose of storing beer and whisky, and that the saloonkeeper would send drinks into the dngont when called for by parties gaming therein, *Held,*that where the proof, as in this case, showed that the dngont was a common resort for gaming, it was immaterial that it was used in connection with and for the purpose of another business.

Appeal from the County Court of Floyd. Tried below before Hon. A. B. Dung ah, County Judge.

The appellant in this case was charged by information with the offense of playing cards in a public place commonly resorted to for the purpose of gaming. He was convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $15, from which he appealed.

The opinion sufficiently states the facts.

*148
      *Snodgrass & Snodgrass,*for appellant.

Ho briefs on file for the State.

DAVIDSOH, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for playing at a game of cards in a dugout, where people commonly resorted for gaming purposes. The dugout was disconnected from the saloon, but used to some extent in storing whisky, which was used by the saloon-keeper in his saloon business. The dugout was resorted to for the purpose of gaming, and the saloonkeeper would send drinks into the dugout when called for by the players. It was contended on the trial, by appellant, that this constituted the dugout a place for retailing spirituous liquors, and therefore there was a variance between the allegations and proof. If the fact that drinks were sent to parties engaged in the gambling in the dugout should bring it within the meaning of a place for retailing spirituous liquors, still there was no variance, for the proof is, that the place was commonly resorted to for such gaming purposes. The court did not err, then, in charging the jury, that if the dugout was shown to be a common resort for gaming, it was immaterial that another business was carried on there.

The evidence fully sustains the conviction, and the judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsElevated temperature crack growthA study was performed to examine the applicability of path-independent (P-I) integrals to crack growth problems in hot section components of gas turbine aircraft engines. Alloy 718 was used and the experimental parameters included combined temperature and strain cycling, thermal gradients, elastic-plastic strain levels, and mean strains. A literature review was conducted of proposed P-I integrals, and those capable of analyzing hot section component problems were selected and programmed into the postprocessor of a finite element code. Detailed elastic-plastic finite element analyses were conducted to simulate crack growth and crack closure of the test specimen, and to evaluate the P-I integrals. It was shown that the selected P-I integrals are very effective for predicting crack growth for isothermal conditions.Document ID19900017039Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsKim, K. S.*(General Electric Co. Cincinnati, OH, United States)*Vanstone, R. H.*(General Electric Co. Cincinnati, OH, United States)*Malik, S. N.*(General Electric Co. Cincinnati, OH, United States)*Laflen, J. H.*(General Electric Co. Cincinnati, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1988Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberR89AEB-325AD-B149073LNASA-CR-182247NAS 1.26:182247Accession Number90N26355Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-23940PROJECT: RTOP 505-43-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017039.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 214.515 Overhead covers for existing on-track roadway maintenance machines. ( a ) For those existing on-track roadway maintenance machines either currently or previously equipped with overhead covers for the operator's position, defective covers shall be repaired, and missing covers shall be reinstalled, by March 28, 2005 and thereafter maintained in accordance with the provisions of § 214.531.
( b ) For those existing on-track roadway maintenance machines that are not already equipped with overhead covers for the operator's position, the employer shall evaluate the feasibility of providing an overhead cover on such a machine if requested in writing by the operator assigned to operate the machine or by the operator's designated representative. The employer shall provide the operator a written response to each request within 60 days. When the employer finds the addition of an overhead cover is not feasible, the response shall include an explanation of the reasoning used by the employer to reach that conclusion.
( c ) For purposes of this section, overhead covers shall provide the operator's position with cover from normal rainfall and midday sun.
§ 22.41 Application procedures. ( a ) A STLP loan guarantee request application package shall consist of the DOT OSDBU Application for Loan Guarantee and supporting documentation as outlined below at paragraph (b) of this section. The application may be obtained directly from the office of DOT OSDBU, from a current Participating Lender, or online from the agency's Web site, currently at *http://osdbu.dot.gov/documents/pdf/stlp/stlpapp.pdf .*
( b ) Supporting documentation may include, but is not limited to, the following items: Business, trade or job performance reference letters; current DBE or SDB eligibility certification letters and/or affidavit; signed and dated borrower certification that all federal, state and local taxes are current; business tax returns; business financial statements; personal income tax returns; personal financial statements; schedule of work in progress; signed and dated copy of transportation-related contracts; business debt schedule; income and cash flow projections; and evidence of bonding and insurance. It also includes, from the Participating Lender, the lender's internal credit approval memo and analysis and other third-party credit verifications obtained.
( c ) Application packages are submitted directly to a Participating Lender, which will perform its own credit review. The Participating Lender must initially approve or decline the loan based upon its internal analysis of the request. Loans approved by the Participating Lender are then forwarded to DOT OSDBU for its STLP eligibility review, independent credit review, and for presentation to the DOT OSDBU Loan Committee. All loan approvals shall require the final approval of the Director, or the Director's designee, for the issuance of a Government Loan Guarantee.
§ 214.103 Fall protection, generally. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, when bridge workers work twelve feet or more above the ground or water surface, they shall be provided and shall use a personal fall arrest system or safety net system. All fall protection systems required by this section shall conform to the standards set forth in § 214.105 of this subpart.
( b ) ( 1 ) This section shall not apply if the installation of the fall arrest system poses a greater risk than the work to be performed. In any action brought by FRA to enforce the fall protection requirements, the railroad or railroad contractor shall have the burden of proving that the installation of such device poses greater exposure to risk than performance of the work itself.
( 2 ) This section shall not apply to bridge workers engaged in inspection of railroad bridges conducted in full compliance with the following conditions: ( i ) The railroad or railroad contractor has a written program in place that requires training in, adherence to, and use of safe procedures associated with climbing techniques and procedures to be used;
( ii ) The bridge worker to whom this exception applies has been trained and qualified according to that program to perform bridge inspections, has been previously and voluntarily designated to perform inspections under the provision of that program, and has accepted the designation;
( iii ) The bridge worker to whom this exception applies is familiar with the appropriate climbing techniques associated with all bridge structures the bridge worker is responsible for inspecting;
( iv ) The bridge worker to whom this exception applies is engaged solely in moving on or about the bridge or observing, measuring and recording the dimensions and condition of the bridge and its components; and
( v ) The bridge worker to whom this section applies is provided all equipment necessary to meet the needs of safety, including any specialized alternative systems required.
( c ) This section shall not apply where bridge workers are working on a railroad bridge equipped with walkways and railings of sufficient height, width, and strength to prevent a fall, so long as bridge workers do not work beyond the railings, over the side of the bridge, on ladders or other elevation devices, or where gaps or holes exist through which a body could fall. Where used in place of fall protection as provided for in § 214.105, this paragraph (c) is satisfied by: ( 1 ) Walkways and railings meeting standards set forth in the American Railway Engineering Association's Manual for Railway Engineering; and
( 2 ) Roadways attached to railroad bridges, provided that bridge workers on the roadway deck work or move at a distance six feet or more from the edge of the roadway deck, or from an opening through which a person could fall.
( d ) This section shall not apply where bridge workers are performing repairs or inspections of a minor nature that are completed by working exclusively between the outside rails, including but not limited to, routine welding, spiking, anchoring, spot surfacing, and joint bolt replacement.
[67 FR 1906, Jan. 15, 2002]
CERTIFICATE OF Principal Accounting and Finance Officer

I, John P. Gorst, Principal Accounting and Finance Officer of Gottaplay
Interactive, Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Gottaplay Interactive
   Inc.;

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 issuer
   as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
   in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the issuer and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
   controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
   material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated
   subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
   particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer's disclosure controls and
   procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
   effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
   period covered by this report based upon such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer's internal control over
   financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report
   that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
   the issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
   operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
   likely to adversely affect the issuer's ability to record, process, summarize
   and report financial information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal control over
   financial reporting.


Date: January 12, 2007

/s/ John P. Gorst
Name: John P. Gorst
Title: Principle Accounting and Finance Officer
SUPREME COURT.

#### In re Sherman P. Barbour.

*Special Term,*

*December,*1876.

*Marine court—jurisdiction.*

The marine court has jurisdiction of actions where the amount recovered does not exceed $2,000. It does not matter what is the amount claimed, if the sum finally recovered does not exceed $2,000, exclusive of costs.

Writs of *habeas corpus*and certiorari were issued by a justice of this court upon petition showing detention óf relator by virtue of an order to arrest and hold to bail in $3,000, made by the chief justice of the marine court of the city of New York. The record produced was the summons for relief, complaint and answer, affidavit, and order to arrest. The action was for $2,500 damages for deceit, and the complaint demanded judgment for $2,500. The relator insisted that the marine court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining this action in that the claim should not be for more than $2,000, which should appear on the face of the record.

*Charles H. Smith,*for relator,

cited *Frees*agt. *Ford*(6 *N. Y.,*176); *People ex rel. Brownson*agt. *Marine Court*(36 *Barb.,*341).

*N. Reeve,*opposed.

Brady, J.

The jurisdiction of the marine court in the action against the relator cannot be disputed. Its exercise has been lawful, and' therefore in accord with the power conferring it. It matters not what is the amount claimed, if the sum finally recovered does not exceed $2,000, exclusive of costs *(Chap.*479, *Laws*1875). If the recovery were in the action against the relator in excess of the sum named, interest and costs, another order to hold to bail detained the defendant on basis of the judgment, it might be a proper subject of investigation. The relator assigns no lawful reason for his discharge, and the writs must, therefore, be dismissed.