alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-45829) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Option Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-66323) pertaining to the Schuff Steel
Company 1997 Stock Option Plan (Amended and Restated as of April 24, 1998), and
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-66325) pertaining to the Schuff
Steel Company 1998 Director Compensation Plan of Schuff Steel Company of our
report dated February 8, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Schuff Steel Company included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1998.
 
                                          /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Phoenix, Arizona
March 17, 1999
(Reap. Dec. 10604)

#### John L. Westland & Son, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7848.

(Decided October 16, 1963)

*Stein & Shostalo*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, that the merchandise and issues in the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the merchandise in issue in *Innooenti Corporation*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9978, 46 Oust. Ct. 662, and *Innooenti dorp.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dee. 10019, 46 Oust. Ot. 705, and that the records in said cases may be incorporated herein.

> That at the time of export such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Italy for home consumption or for export to the United States nor was it freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the United States for domestic consumption.

> *424That “cost of production” as defined in Sec. 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 for such merchandise at the time immediately preceding the date of exportation was as follows:

> For Model 125/LI

> Lira 108,010.00 plus extras marked “X” in red ink on the invoices at invoice unit values in U.S. currency, packed.

> For Model 150/LI

> Lira 121,375.00 plus extras marked “X” in red ink on the invoices at invoice unit values in U.S. currency, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for re-appraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value was as follows:

> For Model 125/LI

> Lira 108,010.00 plus extras marked “X” in red ink on the invoices at invoice unit values in U.S. currency, packed.

> For Model 150/LI

> Lira 121,375.00 plus extras marked “X” in red ink on the invoices at invoice unit values in U.S. currency, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         7,591
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         5,969
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               15,425
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    12,773
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         19,476
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           19,361
<LOANS>                                        112,242
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,321
<DEPOSITS>                                     161,685
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            576
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       31
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 181,321
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                7,492
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1,105
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               1,106
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               9,703
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             5,039
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,039
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          4,664
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  86
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,613
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,613
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,022
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 8.0
<LOANS-NON>                                    315
<LOANS-PAST>                                   1,198
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1,081
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  161
<RECOVERIES>                                   42
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1,048
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        1,048


</TABLE>
September 2, 1954

No. 58361.

Suit 4796.

#### United States *v.*Allen Forwarding Co.

C. D. 1540 reversed May 27, 1954. C. A. D. 566.
No. 59356.

protest 250326-K (New York).

#### Universal Importing Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely. (Section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1547

In re: MARIE A. BECTON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:21-cv-00449-D)

Submitted: August 8, 2024 Decided: August 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie A. Becton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1547 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Marie A. Becton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the 

district court to grant her the relief she requested in her dismissed complaint against the 

Commissioner of Social Security. We conclude that Becton is not entitled to mandamus 

relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to 

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re 

Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Becton is not available by way of mandamus. Becton had an 

adequate means—a direct appeal—to attain the relief she desires. In fact, she did appeal

the district court’s dismissal of her complaint, but she did so too late. She cannot cure her 

failure to note a timely appeal through this petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, 

we deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1547 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 72498)    
In accordance with title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the National Cancer Institute Board of Scientific Advisors, was renewed for an additional two-year period on October 8, 2023.

It is determined that the National Cancer Institute Board of Scientific Advisors, is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.

                    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or                     *harriscl@mail.nih.gov.*

Dated: October 17, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-23266 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.
 This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q/A to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
 /s/ Patrick G. LePorePatrick G. LePorePresident and Chief Executive OfficerJuly 30, 2007
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Sandor Grosz, the Chief Financial Officer of Technology Solutions Company, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Technology Solutions Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  August 15, 2005 By:  /s/ SANDOR GROSZ    Sandor Grosz    Chief Financial Officer
No. 65295.

#### F. B. Wilcon Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/13343, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-13-00490-CV

_________________

IN RE JOHN S. MORGAN AND JOHN S. MORGAN, P.C., D/B/A 

MORGAN LAW FIRM

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

John S. Morgan and John S. Morgan, P.C., d/b/a Morgan Law Firm filed a 

motion for rehearing with a supplemental appendix. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.9. 

After reviewing the motion for rehearing and the supplemental appendix, we 

conclude Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief.

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). We overrule the motion for rehearing.

MOTION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED. 

PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered December 12, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Before the First Division,

December 21, 1949

No. 53842.

#### Capitol Wine & Spirit Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 134510-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy V. CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-7612.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 12, 2001.

Troy V. Cleveland, pro se. James L. Trump, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Troy Cleveland appeals the district court’s dismissal of his first motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000) as time barred under the limitations period imposed under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). *See*§ 2255 II6. However, Cleveland fails to demonstrate that he could not reasonably have moved for relief under § 2255 within that one-year period, and acknowledges that he was aware of the factual predicate for his claim well before his one year window for filing a § 2255 motion closed. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal because the district court properly dismissed Cleveland’s § 2255 motion as time barred under the AEDPA. *See Weaver v. United States,*195 F.3d 123, 124 (2d Cir.1999); *cf. United States v. Pregent,*190 F.3d 279, 284 (4th Cir.1999) (ruling that to the extent the Appellant’s motion “was more properly characterized as a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, th[at] motion was filed after the statute of limitations expired,” and therefore properly denied). 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.*
<PAGE>   1
                         [PEDERSEN & HOUPT letterhead]




                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1


                            FORM OF LEGAL OPINION OF
                             PEDERSEN & HOUPT, P.C.




   
    




SpinCycle, Inc.
15990 North Greenway
Hayden Loop
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

            You have requested our opinion regarding the discussion of the
material United States federal income tax considerations under the heading
"Federal Income Tax Consequences" in the Prospectus (the "Prospectus") which
will be included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the "Registration
Statement") filed by SpinCycle, Inc. (the "Issuer") on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"). The Prospectus relates to the offer,
made by the Issuer, to exchange an aggregate amount at maturity of up to
$144,990,000 of 12 3/4% Senior Discount Notes Due 2005 (the "New Notes") of the
Issuer, for a like principal amount of the issued and outstanding 12 3/4% Senior
Discount Notes Due 2005 (the "Old Notes") of the Issuers from the holders
thereof. This opinion is delivered in accordance with the requirements of Item
601(b)(8) of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act.

            We have reviewed the Prospectus and such other materials as we have
deemed necessary or appropriate as a basis for our opinion described herein, and
have considered the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder, pertinent judicial
authorities, interpretive rulings of the Internal
<PAGE>   2
[Pedersen & Houpt Logo]


Page 2


Revenue Service and such other authorities as we have considered relevant all as
in effect on the date hereof. It should be noted that statutes, regulations,
judicial decisions and administrative interpretations are subject to change at
any time and, in some circumstances, with retroactive effect. A change in the
authorities upon which our opinion is based could affect our conclusions.

         Based upon the foregoing, it is our opinion that the statements made
under the heading "Federal Income Tax Consequences" in the Prospectus, to the
extent that they constitute matters of law or legal conclusions, are correct in
all material respects.

         In accordance with the requirements of Item 601(b)(23) of Regulation
S-K under the Securities Act, we hereby consent to the use of our name under the
heading "LEGAL MATTERS" in the Prospectus and to the filing of this opinion as
an Exhibit to the Registration Statement. In giving this consent, we do not
thereby admit that we are within the category of persons whose consent is
required under Section 7 of the Securities Act or the rules and regulations of
the Commission promulgated thereunder.


                                   Sincerely,
**Exhibit
                  32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick
      G. LePore, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the
                Company.





*This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
      Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
      such
      filing.*





/s/
                Patrick G. LePorePatrick
                G. LePoreChairman,
                President and Chief Executive OfficerMay
                8, 2008
No. 66145.

Appeal 5082.

#### United States *v.*Roberto Colon Machinery Co.

C.D. 2247. Appeal dismissed July 21, 1961.
123 STAT. 1772 PUBLIC LAW 111–27—JUNE 19, 2009 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 918: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Mar. 23, considered and passed House. 

May 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–27 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 300 East 

3rd Street in Jamestown, New York, as the ‘‘Stan Lundine Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. STAN LUNDINE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 300 East 3rd Street in Jamestown, New York, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Stan Lundine Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Stan Lundine Post Office Building’’. 

Approved June 19, 2009. 

June 19, 2009 

[H.R. 918] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
Order filed, July 18, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00596-CR

____________

WILLIE BROOKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Crim Dist Ct 4

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1215599D

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due July 10, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order, the Official Court Reporter of Criminal District Court Number 4, to 

file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM