alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OPINION ON REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY DWAYNE ROGERS, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.  No. 00-7823 MARTIN MCDADE, Superintendent;

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION,

Respondents-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.

(CA-96-15-4-MU)

Submitted: September 28, 2001

Decided: April 3, 2002

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Jeffrey Dwayne Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Jeffrey Dwayne Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to Respondents and denying his petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (West 1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We grant Respondents’ petition

for rehearing but deny rehearing en banc. Upon our review, we find

insufficient evidence that the State’s factfinding was deficient in some

significant respect. See Fitzgerald v. Greene, 150 F.3d 357, 369 (4th

Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of the district court. Rogers v. McDade, No. CA-96-15-4-MU (W.D.N.C. filed

Nov. 27, 2000; entered Nov. 30, 2000); see North Carolina v. Rogers,

File No. 93 CRS 7128, 7129 (Sup. Ct. Wilkes County June 12, 1995).

We note that the district court granted Rogers’ request for a certificate of appealability. However, such a certificate is not necessary

because this § 2254 petition was filed prior to the enactment of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336

(1997); Mueller v. Angelone, 181 F.3d 557, 565-66, (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 527 U.S. 1065 (1999). To the extent it is necessary, we grant

a certificate of probable cause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1994). 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.

AFFIRMED

2 ROGERS v. MCDADE
IV 

House Calendar No. 234

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 601

[Report No. 107–774] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 12), 2002

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed 

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules.

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of Wednesday, November 13, 

6 2002, providing for consideration or disposition of a bill 
2

HRES 601 RH 

1 to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and 

2 for other purposes. 

House Calendar No. 234

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 601

[Report No. 107–774] 

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

NOVEMBER 13 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 12), 2002

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
#### Fred GREEN, Administrator of the Estate of Nina Voroponov, Deceased, v. William E. BOTTOMS, and Allen K. Cooper, and Friends Neighborhood Guild, Inc.

Civ. A. 21091.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania, at Philadelphia.

Sept. 3, 1958.

*229Gordon W. Gerber, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

William J. McKinley, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (Swartz, Campbell & Henry, Philadelphia, Pa.), for defendant.

LEAHY, District Judge.

The facts here are discussed in Maryland Casualty Company v. Green, D.C., E.D.Pa., 167 F.Supp. 226.

In this action Green, as Administrator, moves for partial summary judgment as against the Fourth and Fifth Defenses. The Fourth Defense of the defendant Friends Neighborhood Guild, Inc., of charitable immunity from suit has been abandoned by stipulation and an order approving the same has been filed. This leaves the motion directed at the Fifth Defense; í. e., a defendant is immune from common law liability where there is an employer-employee relationship at the time of injury, and rights are governed by the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Law, 77 P.S. § 1 et seq. Plaintiff claims this is not a good defense in a Federal Court action growing out of a Pennsylvania accident.

1. The Fifth Defense injects into this death action based on negligence the probable application of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act. The issue whether decedent was within “the course of her employment” at the time of the accident becomes important only if a jury should find the accident was caused by some negligence attributable to her employer; and such becomes relevant only to the execution stage of an action and a concomitant judgment. Under Pennsylvania law in a common law action against several defendants the negligence action should not become complicated by workmen’s compensation issues for such is not a valid defense during a trial by the estate of a deceased person against two or more defendants one of whom claims to have been in an employer-employee relationship with plaintiff. Maio v. Fahs, 339 Pa. 180, 14 A.2d 105; McIntyre v. Strausser, 365 Pa. 507, 76 A.2d 220; Socha v. Metz, 385 Pa. 632, 123 A.2d 837.

2. The case at bar comes within the Pennsylvania cases as this is a Pennsylvania accident. Liability governed by the state workmen’s compensation statutes is not a defense in a jury trial in a Federal Court against an alleged employer and third parties. The Guild, as defendant, may raise the question at a later time if it suffers an adverse judgment. But under Pennsylvania law plaintiff should have summary judgment as to the Fifth Defense set forth in the Guild’s answer.

An appropriate order may be submitted.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.14 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  "THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS" AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,064
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     54,875
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,321
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,293
<LOANS>                                        120,624
<ALLOWANCE>                                        402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,866
<DEPOSITS>                                     108,987
<SHORT-TERM>                                    28,875
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,615
<LONG-TERM>                                     16,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,511
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 186,866
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,375
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,881
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,256
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,030
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,271
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,985
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       50
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 138
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,313
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,313
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       804
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.44
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   351
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  402
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            402



</TABLE>
P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

213)OGRC-S0014 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:31 PM Sheet 213 of 259 
P.2 

O&RC-SOOt^ 

A . A . OILFIELD SERVICE, INC. 

Post Office Box 5208 

HOBBS, NEW MEXICO 88241-5208 

August A. Peters, Jr., President 

Cyril A. Scheller, Vice-President 

Barry A. Peters, Vice-President 

September 18, 1990 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

400 M Street 

Washington, D.C. 

ATTN: Mr. Robert Hall 

Dear Mr. Hall: 

The oil industry is facing many new and diverse challenges. Industry 

competitiveness in the world market as well as environmental responsibility continue to play a very important role in the decisions that 

affect the industries ability to meet the energy needs of the general 

public. 

We at A.A. Oilfield Service, Inc. are concerned over the recent E.P.A. 

decision to no longer exempt wastes generated by small crude oil 

reclamation operations. The E.P.A. exemption expires September 25, 

1990. The wastes generated by crude oil reclamation are an accumulation of stock oil tank bottoms. We fail to see the difference 

between stock oil tank bottoms and reclaimed oil tank bottoms. The 

oil salvaged from stock tank bottoms is marketable and is used to 

ease America's dependence on foreign oil. If crude oil reclamation 

wastes are not exempt, these plants will be forced to close immediately. Plant closings would create a huge and immediate problem of 

accumulation of wastes at the lease site. Illegal dumping of 

these wastes in an unaccountable manner would become a very serious 

problem. 

Environmental responsibility is a must for all industry. It is 

important to the oil industry and the environment that reclaimed oil 

tank bottoms remain exempt from the E.P.A. hazardous waste guidelines. 

Sincerely, 

Barry^A. Peters, 

Vics"-President 
YEAR 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

*8 mos. 

TOTALS 

PRODUCED WATER 

575,125 bbls 

705,501 bbls 

608,633 bbls 

554,028 bbls 

444,267 bbls 

564,426 bbls 

351,560 bbls 

3,803,540 bbls 

A.A. OILFIELD SERVICE, INC. 

B/S 

10,125 bbls 

12,420 bbls 

10,715 bbls 

9,753 bbls 

7,821 bbls 

9,936 bbls 

6,189 bbls 

66,959 bbls 

TOTAL 

585,250 bbls 

717,921 bbls 

619,348 bbls 

563,781 bbls 

452,088 bbls 

574,362 bbls 

357,749 bbls 

3,870,499 bbls 

RECOVERED 

OIL 

4,337 bbls 

5,075 bbls 

3,966 bbls 

4,035 bbls 

4,450 bbls 

4,896 bbls 

6,244 bbls 

33,003 bbls 

i Nj 

4 

t
#### Holmes *v.*The State.

Argued October 21,

Decided November 16, 1907.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Seabrook. McIntosh, superior court. June *22,*1907.

*Charles M. Tyson,*for plaintiff in error.

*John C. Hart, attorney-general, Newton J. Norman, solicitor-general,*and *Garrard & Meldrim,*contra.

Bumpkin, J.

*No*ruling or charge,of the court pending the trial is complained of; the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
https://fdms.erulemaking.net/.../component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=Print&PrintId=0900006480b16f14&Comment=true[8/18/2010 3:06:15 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 18, 2010

Received: July 11, 2010

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80b16f14

Comments Due: August 27, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: HHS-OS-2010-0014

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits,

Rescissions, and PatientProtections

Comment On: HHS-OS-2010-0014-0001

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits,

Rescissions, and PatientProtections

Document: HHS-OS-2010-0014-DRAFT-0010

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-15278

Submitter Information

Name: Carol Smock

General Comment

I have recently come across a practice that I find puzzling and should be addressed somewhere in the

regulations. My insurance company has both approved and denied an insulin pump for me at the same time!

Quite a neat trick. On the one hand, the insulin pump is approved. On the other hand, insulin pump treatment

initiation is denied because it is "not provided by this company."

So far no one has been able to explain this discrepancy to me. It seems a neat trick to avoid paying for a service

at the same time you say it's being provided.

How can this be addressed in regulations to protect patients' rights?
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.1

                            PACCAR Financial Corp.

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                     PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
                             (Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Year Ended December 31
                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     1998             1997             1996            1995             1994
                                     ----             ----             ----            ----             ----
<S>                             <C>                <C>              <C>             <C>              <C>
FIXED CHARGES
  Interest expense                $   112,958      $   101,440      $    98,536     $    89,796      $    62,851
  Portion of rentals
      deemed interest                     704              257              244             238              226
                                  -----------      -----------      -----------     -----------      -----------

TOTAL FIXED CHARGES               $   113,662      $   101,697      $    98,780     $    90,034      $    63,077
                                  -----------      -----------      -----------     -----------      -----------
                                  -----------      -----------      -----------     -----------      -----------
EARNINGS
  Income before taxes             $    40,378      $    50,697           52,180     $    46,730      $    42,147

FIXED CHARGES                         113,662          101,697           98,780          90,034           63,077
                                  -----------      -----------      -----------     -----------      -----------

EARNINGS AS DEFINED               $   154,040      $   152,394      $   150,960     $   136,764      $   105,224
                                  -----------      -----------      -----------     -----------      -----------
                                  -----------      -----------      -----------     -----------      -----------

RATIO OF EARNINGS
  TO FIXED CHARGES (1)               1.36x            1.50x           1.53x            1.52x           1.67x
</TABLE>


(1)   The method of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges shown 
      above complies with SEC reporting requirements but differs from the 
      method called for in the Support Agreement between the Company and 
      PACCAR. See Exhibit 12.2.


                                     -32-
#### Charles S. Biddlecom, Appellant, v. Loren F. Shed and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Merwin, J., delivered at Special Term.
|  | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:and |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the      Company. |
|--|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Presidential      Realty Corporation |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |   |   |
|   |                                 |   |   |
|   | By:                             | /s/      Thomas Viertel |   |
|   |                                 | Thomas      Viertel |   |
|   |                                 | Chief      Financial Officer |   |

----
From: Linda Morse

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:30:32 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Linda Morse

258 Union Street

Millis, ma 02054
#### In the Matter of Supplementary Proceedings by William A. Crawford, Respondent, against Musco M. Robertson, Appellant.

*Matter of Crawford*v. *Robertson,*148 App. Div. 894, appeal dismissed.

(Argued March 18, 1912;

decided April 2, 1912.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 22, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying, a motion to vacate a prior order requiring the appellant herein to appear and he examined in supplementary proceedings.

*William King Hall*for appellant.

*George F. Elliott, Jay S. Jones*and *Henry M. Eater*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Culler, Ch. J., Haight, Varr, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collir, JJ.
Exhibit 31(a)

I, Mark C. Pigott, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of PACCAR Financial Corp.;
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date August 5, 2011



/s/ Mark C. PigottMark C. PigottChairman(Principal Executive Officer)




13