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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6220

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RANDY KENDRELL SIMPSON, a/k/a Cheese,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-96-11, CA-98-974)

Submitted: April 10, 2000 Decided: April 25, 2000

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Kendrell Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

November 12, 2000, the district court’s record shows that it was

entered on the docket sheet on November 15, 1999. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet

that we take as the effective date of the district court’s

decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Randy Kendrell Simpson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on

Simpson’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Simpson’s notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district

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

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

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

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

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

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

220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 15, 1999.* Simpson’s notice of appeal was filed on February

4, 2000. Because Simpson failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
3

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
Exhibit 23.1.b

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-97263 on Form S-3, Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-87190 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-98781 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-45618 on Form S-8 of Great Plains Energy Incorporated of our report dated March 9, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of new accounting principles), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Plains Energy Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2003.



/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE

Kansas City, Missouri
March 9, 2004
No. 50984.

#### Protests 960881-G, etc., of Stewart & Co., Inc., et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 9,038.

#### In re MANNHEIM.

[6 Ben. 270: 7 West. Jur. 72; 7 N. B. R. 342; 5 Chi. Leg. News. 149; 5 Pac. Law Rep. 106; 4 Leg. Op. 529; 7 Alb. Law J. 13.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec., 1872.

M., who was a man of large

property, refused BANKRt~PTC~-SUSPENS1ON OF CoMME1wi~L PAPEIt -B0NA FInE DEFENCE. to pay a note which he had made, being advised by counsel, and believing, that he had a valid defence against it. A suit was thereupon brought against him, in a state court, by the holder of the note; and, while that suit was pending, the holder of the note filed a petition against M. in involuntary bankruptcy, alleging that he had suspended payment of the note for fourteen days. *Held,*that the case was not a proper one for an adjudication of bankruptcy, and that the petition must be dismissed.

[In the matter of William Mannheim, an alleged bankrupt.]

S. D. Sewards, for petitioner.

J. D. Reymert, for debtor.

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

I do not think this is a proper case for an adjudication. The sole act of bankruptcy alleged is .the suspension of payment, for fourteen days, of the promissory note held by the petitioner. It is shown that the alleged bankrupt is a man of large property; that he has not suspended payment of his debts and his commercial paper generally; that he is engaged in prosecuting a regular business wholly unconnected with the transactions in respect to which the note was given; that he failed to pay the note because he was advised by counsel, and believed, that he had a good defence to it, on the ground that he had never received any *consideration*for it, and that it was passed away by the payee in violation of the agreement under which it was given, and that the petitioner was not a bona fide holder of it for a valuable- consideration without notice; and that a suit is now pending in the supreme court of New York against him, brought on the note, by the petitioner, before this proceeding was instituted, which suit is defended on the above grounds, and is at issue and ready for trial. Under these circumstances, the debtor cannot be said to have suspended payment of his commercial paper, within the meaning of the statute. It was not intended that such a person should be put into bankruptcy. It is not for this court to try the question of the actual liability of the debtor on the note, and adjudge that there was a suspension of payment of his commercial paper, if such liability existed. The proper forum for the determination of the question as to such lia-*640Hbility is the court in which the suit on the note is pending. The petition- is dismissed, with costs.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901

Mr. Eric L. Hiser Jorden Bi chof f & H i er , P.L.C. 7272 E. Indian School Road, Suit 360

cottsdale , Arizona 85251
Dear Mr. Hi er : 

## JUN 0 6 2013 OFFICE OF THE REG I ONAL ADMINISTRATOR

The U.S

. Envi ronmental Prot ction Agenc

_ (EPA) has received th petition you submitted on Fe bruary 4 , 2013 on beh a l f of rizona El ctric Power Cooperative (A EP CO) , seeking r consid r ation and a st ay of effectiveness o f certain e lement of E PA ' s fi nal rule entitled "App rov a l , Dis ap proval and Promulgation o f Air Quali t Imp le m nt atio n Plans ; Arizona; R gional Haze Sta te and Fe der al Imp le m nt at ion Plans" a it applies to the Apache Gene rat in g Station (Apach ), 77 FR 72512 (Dec. 5 , 2012)

. We h ave a l so receiv d the supp lement to th e petition th at you ubmitted on May 29 , 2013 , which

et out an alt rn at ive to t he determinations of Bes t Avail abl R trofit Technology (BART) for Apache Unit ST2 a nd S T 3 refl cted in th at rule

. I n re pon e to your p tition , EPA i grant in g p artial reconsid ration of our fina l rul e pur uan t to

ection 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) , 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d) (7)(B). In p articular , in response to AEPCO"s proposed alternative to BART for Apache Units S T 2 and S T 3 , we are granting r consid ration of the emi ion limi t for nitrogen oxides (NO x) , sulfur dioxid (S0 2) and particu late matter (PM) at tho e unit

. In addit ion, we are granting reconsideration of th e compliance methodo logy for NO x in our fin a l rule as it app li es to Ap a che Units ST2 and S T 3

. Fin all y , we are granting r ons id erat ion ofth provi ion o f our fi n al rule concerning Apache Unit STl a nd GTl in order to cl ar ify the ci rcumst an ces und r which the BART limit for STl app ly to thes uni ts. Accordingly , EPA plans to publ i sh a notic o f propo d rul making seekin g commen t on an alt rnative to BART and a revi d complianc m thodology for Apache Unit T2 and T 3. A p ati o f this notic e , we a lso in ten d to propos and seek comm nt on a clarification to the regulatory text concerning the ap plic ab il it y o f BA RT limit to T l an d G T1

. If you have any qu es tion regardi ng t h r cons iderat ion proc e , ple ase contact Ch arl otte Withey at (415) 972

- 3915 or Lea And ron at (202) 564

- 5571. We t ha nk you for yo ur continued inte ret i n thi

Printt'd o n Recyclt'd P aparu le and look forward to he aring fr om you during the rec onsiderat ion process. Sincere l y,

cc : Mr. Eric Massey, Arizona Department of E nvironm e nt a l Quality Mr. Joseph P. Mikitish, Arizona Attorney Gene ral's Office Mr. Michael Hiatt, Earthju tice Arizona Congressional De legation
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FAY ARFA, A LAW CORPORATION

Fay Arfa, Attorney at Law

CA Bar No. 100143

10100 Santa Monica Blvd., #300

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: (310) 841-6805

Attorney for Petitioner

JOHNNY PAUL COLLINS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHNNY PAUL COLLINS,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID L. RUNNELLS, Warden,

Respondent.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:04 - CV01516 DFL - GGH 

 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing now set for January 26,

2006 at 10:00 a.m. be continued until February 23, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. 

Counsel for petitioner is order to file any reply and opposition on or before

February 3, 2006.

DATED: 1/18/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

coll1516.eot

Case 2:04-cv-01516-JKS-GGH Document 32 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.2





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 General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John
Chen, Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge:





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 results of operations of the
Company.





Dated:
      August 9, 2010
                By:
                /s/
      John ChenJohn
      Chen
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Alain Delongchamp certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Clearant, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;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 this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant is made known to us by others within the entity, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) 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 has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize, and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         Date: November 14, 2005   /s/ ALAIN DELONGCHAMP             Alain Delongchamp      *President and Chief Executive Officer*      *(Principal Executive Officer)*
No. 47865.

#### Protests 41518-K, etc., of N. S. Meyer, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, L

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question consists of woven fabrics wholly or in chief value of any of the fabrics provided for in paragraph 385 and is similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Meyer*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 191, C. D. 459) the claim under paragraph 385 and T. D. 48316 was sustained.
Before the First Division,

February 26, 1945

No. 50042.

#### Petition 6486-R of Nicholas Gal (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The petition was dismissed.
**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 European Micro Holdings, Inc. (the
      “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


Date:
                  October
                  16, 2006
              By:
              */s/ John B. Gallagher*Name:John
                    B. GallagherTitle:Co-Chief Executive OfficerDate:
                  October
                  16, 2006
              By:
              */s/
                Harry D. Shields*Name:Harry
                    D. ShieldsTitle:Co-Chief Executive Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to European Micro Holdings, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by European Micro Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 6649.

#### R. W. KETTERINGHAM vs. EUREKA HOMESTEAD SOCIETY, ET AL.

Syllabus.

Act 221 of 1914 is not as broad as Act 180 of 1894, and grants a privilege only to those having claims against the undertaker; those having claims only against sub-contractors are granted no privilege by that act.

Appeal from the 'Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “C,” No. 114,297. Honorable E. K., Skinner, Judge.

C. R. Beattie, for plaintiff and .appellee.

0. Schrieber, for defendant and appellant.

McCloskey & Benedict, attorneys.

Plis Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Ketteringham contracted to build a house for the Eureka Homestead Society. He sublet the plumbing to Edwin Salzer. The latter purchased the materials from Ahrens & Ott. Ketteringham paid Edwin Salzer in full.' Edwin Salzer failed to pay Ahrens & Ott. Ahrens & Ott assigned their claim (with all its accessories, as we find) to Alfred Salzer, who served and recorded a sworn statement of the claim in accordance with Act 221 of 1914.

The only question presented is whether or not that Act grants a privilege upon the building in favor of those who furnish material to a sub-contractor.

The precise question arose in Brink and Necland vs. Bartlett, 105 La., 336, and was decided affirmatively under Act 180 of 1894.

But we find a radical difference between the language of the Statute of 1894 and that of 1914.

*335Opinion and decree, April 10th, 1916.

Rehearing refused, May 8th, 1916.

Writ granted, but not as yet passed upon, July 1, 1916.

The former purports to be for the protection of “all workmen, mechanics and laborers, and all those who furnish materials and supplies .actually used in the building,” without limitation or qualification whatsoever; whilst the latter purports to be for the protection of “all sub-contractors, workmen, laborers, mechanics, and furnishers of materials” having a claim “against the undertaker. ’

For these are the only ones authorized to file and record claims .against the building. If there be no “such” claims, the recorder shall cancel the privilege resulting from the contract.

The Statute does not purport to give a privilege to those having claims only against a sub-contractor, and we do not feel authorized, even if so disposed, to stretch its meaning so as to cover the claims of the latter. - For it is elementary that all privileges are stricti juris, much more so where the privilege is claimed upon one man’s property for a debt due by another. As the District Judge has well said all such legislation is against common right, and when so intended should be clear and unambiguous, and not leave the privilege to be eked out by construction. • '

In the case at bar, Ahrens & Ott never had a claim against the undertaker (Ketteringhami). I'Their) claiim is against Salzer. They could assign only what they had, and hence could assign no privilege upon the building.

We think the judgment appealed from is correct.

Judgment affirmed.
**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 Corumel Minerals Corp. (the
“ *Company* ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31 st ,
      2004,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “ *Report* ”),
      I,
      Chris Roth, 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:





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 results of operations of the
                Company.








Date:  June
        9 th ,
        2005    */s/
        Chris Roth*
 Chris
        Roth
 Chief
        Executive Officer


***EX
          32 - 1***


**Exhibit
      32.2**








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 Corumel Minerals Corp. (the
“ *Company* ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31 st ,
      2004,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “ *Report* ”),
      I,
      Dr. Edwin Meier, Chief Financial 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:





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 results of operations of the
                Company.





Date:  June
        9 th ,
        2005    */s/
        Dr. Edwin Meier*
 Dr.
        Edwin
        Meier
 Chief
        Financial Officer





***EX
          32 - 2***
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105

MEMO 

SUBJECT: 1-hour SO2 and NO2 Impacts for the MCU PSD Permit Amendment 

FROM: Cleveland Holladay, Air Quality Modeler 

 U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Division, Air Quality Analysis Office 

TO: MCU Facility PSD Permit Administrative Record 

DATE: October 14, 2014 

EPA has reviewed the McElmo Creek Unit Oil and Production Facility (MCU Facility) Gas 

Plant Air Modeling and the accompanying June 1, 2011 report submitted by the Resolute Natural 

Resources Company (Resolute). Resolute used the AERMOD model with five years of surface 

meteorological data (2005-2009) from Canyonlands Airport near Moab, UT and five years of 

upper air data from Grand Junction, CO. The applicant determined the worst case impact 

emissions for various heat contents for the Main Flare. The maximum modeled impact 

concentrations from AERMOD occurred with a flare heat content of 300 BTU/SCF. The 

applicant did cumulative SO2 modeling for all modeled flare heat input scenarios and presented 

the results in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. The model predicted impacts both in flat terrain and elevated 

terrain. AERMOD predicted a maximum 1-hour SO2 impact from the main flare and regional 

background sources to be 26.76 g/m3. The maximum SO2 impact, including a background 

monitored concentration of 79 g/m3

, is 105.76 g/m3. This predicted value is below the 1-hr 

SO2 NAAQS of 196 g/m3

. SCREEN3 model runs predicted no significant impacts for NO2 

emissions, which are considerably lower than the proposed SO2 emissions. To determine NO2

impacts from the SO2 AERMOD modeling, EPA ratioed the NO2 emissions with the SO2

emissions for various cases, including the worst case. EPA compared the ratio with the predicted 

SO2 cumulative impacts from Tables 6-1 and 6-2 for conservatism. The highest predicted 1-hour 

NO2 impact is 5.00 g/m3

, which is less than the mg/m3 significant impact level. No further NO2

analysis is required.
Before the Third Division,

July 22, 1944

No. 49639.

#### Protests 79160-K, etc., of H. A. Astlett & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel sole crepe rubber similar to that the subject of *United States*v. *F. Lester Kittle, Inc.*(31 C. C. P. A. 233, C. A. D. 276) was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1697 as claimed.