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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 7028

FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, (“DPSCS”); GARY MAYNARD, Secretary, DPSCS; GREGG L. HERSHBERGER, Secretary, DPSCS; COMMISSIONER STOUFFER; DAYENA CORCORAN, Warden; LAURA ARMSTEAD, Assistant Warden; CEO OF MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL ENTERPRISES, Shiloh; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BIVENS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER NIVENS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WASHINGTON ; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HENRY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OSLES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GATEWOOD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KRAMO; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DAUGHTERY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BAILEY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FLIGGINS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MACKALL; SOCIAL WORKER REM BRAUNDAT; SOCIAL WORKER CARYA ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv

- 00090

- JFM )

Submitted : November 21 , 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane

- Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Frankie McCoy, Sr., appeals the district court’ s order denying relief on h is civil

action asserting claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1 973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A.
§§ 701 to 7961 (West 2008 & Supp. 2017); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101 to 12213 (2012); and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm f or the reasons stated by the district

court. McCoy v. Md. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. 1:16

- cv

- 00090

- JFM (D.
Md. July 28, 2017)

. We grant McCoy’s motion to amend/correct his informal brief. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts an d legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia

ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals he reby passes

the followi

ng order: A14D0435. JOHN WAYNE MA DDOX v. THE STA TE. John Wayne Maddox seeks appellate review of the trial cour

t’s order deny ing his motion

to vacate his conviction and sentence. T he trial c ourt enter ed its orde r on May 29, 2014. Maddox file d his applic ation for d iscretion ary a

ppeal on July 2, 2014. We lac k jur isd ict ion bec aus e th e ap pli cati on i s un timel y. An appli cat ion for disc retionar y appe al mus t be filed within 30 da ys of t he entry of the order or judg

ment to be appeale d. See O CGA § 5- 6-35 (d). The requirem ents of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an applicati on for

appeal not

made in com pliance th erewith
. See Boyle v. State , 190 Ga. App. 7 34 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Here, Maddox filed his application 34 days after entry of the order he seeks to appeal. Theref ore, his a pplication i s untim ely, and it is hereby DISMI SSED f

or lack of jurisdic tion. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certify t hat the abo ve is a t

rue extract f

rom the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witness my signa ture and the seal of said co urt hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en. , Clerk. 07/30/2014 July 30, 2014
#### Wm. F. Lawrence *et al.,*Resp’ts, *v.*Arvin W. Harrington, App’lt.

No papers.

Motion to recall from second division denied; ten dollars costs.

See 15 N. Y. State Rep., 867. .
#### Strawbridge & Clothier et al. *v.*United States

No. 6657.

Entry No. C-1278, etc.

-Invoices dated London, England, September 23, 1941. etc.

Certified September 25, 1941, etc.

Entered at Philadelphia, Pa., November 7, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 20, 1946)

*Tompkins Tompkins*(/. *Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**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 BioVeris Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George V. Migausky, 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.

 
| Dated: November 9, 2005 | /s/ George V. Migausky |  
 

George V. Migausky

 
 

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

 

  |
|-------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
7123

#### COOKE v. PARIS MOUNTAIN WATER CO.

Damages — Towns and Cities — Wateb Company. — The provision in a contract between a water supply company and a municipality that it would furnish an adequate supply of water for the extinguishment of fires does not carry liability to a private owner of property for losses which would have been prevented if the defendant had not negligently failed to provide water pressure sufficient to extinguish the fire.

Before Keugi-i, J., Greenville, March, 1908.

Reversed.

Action by C. E. Cooke against Paris Mountain Water Company and American Pipe Manufacturing Company. Erom order overruling demurrer, defendants appeal.

*Messrs. Cothran, Dean & Cothran,*for appellants,

cite: 19 S. C., 412; 58 S'. C., 413; 30' Ency., 430-, and cases cited in note; 15 L. R. A., 375; 1 Farnham on Waters, 842-8; 6 E. R. A. (N. S.), 429; 33 E. R. A., 59; 215 Pa. St., 275.

*Mr. J. J. McSwain,*contra,

cites: 29 Cyc., 426; 20 Cyc., 1159, 1160'; 62 S'. C., 232 ; 49 L. R. A., 572; 36 L. R. A., 535; 19 S'. C., 412; 46 E. R. A., 514; 6 R. R. Á. (N. S.), 1171; 200 U. S,, 59.

April 9, 1909.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The contract of the defendant with the city of Greenville is not in the record, while in the very similar case of *Ancrum*v. *Camden Water, Light and Ice Co., post*284, the contract of the water company was set out as a part of the complaint. The complaint in this case, however, rests on the proposition that a contract of a water company with a municipality, containing a general *236stipulation that it would furnish an adequate supply of water for the extinguishment of fires, carries with such stipulation liability to a private owner of property for fire losses, which would have been prevented if the defendant had not negligently failed to provide water pressure sufficient to extinguish the fire. The case of *Ancrum*v. *Camden Water, Light and Ice Co.*holds that the contract does not cover such liability, and that the plaintiff cannot recover.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed.
Exhibit
31.3









CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)







I, Marc
Kilbride, Vice President and Treasurer of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric,
LLC (successor to Reliant Energy, Incorporated), as servicer (the “servicer”),
certify that:






1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing
distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the
year covered by this annual report, of CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond
Company, LLC;




2. Based
on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period
covered by this annual report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be
provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these
reports;




4. Based
on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in the report
and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the terms of the
Transition Property Servicing Agreement dated October 24, 2001 between
CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company, LLC (successor to Reliant Energy
Transition Bond Company LLC), as Issuer, and the servicer, CenterPoint Energy
Houston Electric, LLC (successor to Reliant Energy, Incorporated) (the
“Transition Property Servicing Agreement”),  and except as disclosed
in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Transition
Property Servicing Agreement; and




5. The
reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s
compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided
by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,
that is included in these reports.







/s/
      Marc KilbrideMarc
      KilbrideVice
      President and Treasurer(Senior
      Officer in Charge of Servicing Function)CenterPoint
      Energy Houston Electric, LLC, as servicerMarch
      31, 2009
No. 48634.

#### Protests 611868-G, etc., of Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of Abstract 4S269. The protests were therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32.7

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Long Only Commodity Series.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                    
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                      
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                       
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                           
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 7, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CHARLES R. OGLE and MELANIE A. 

OGLE, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC, ) 

et al., ) 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

Judge Economus 

Magistrate Judge Kemp 

Case No. 2:10-cv-01059-PCE-TPK 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND ORDER 

The parties have reached a confidential settlement to resolve their claims in the abovereferenced matter. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiffs Charles 

R. Ogle and Melanie A. Ogle hereby voluntarily dismiss this action with prejudice. The Court 

retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Charles R. Ogle 

Melante rJ0t A. Ogle Q a~· ·-L oc s~ · · 

Plaintiffs, Pro Se 

11575 Donaldson Road 

Rockbridge, Ohio 43149 

7 40-3 85-5959 

Case: 2:10-cv-01059-PCE-TPK Doc #: 143 Filed: 03/18/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
0

; 

• '1 

ELIZRHA{PRESTg}iDEAVERS ~fUlJVy~ 

UNITED STAT~MA.GISTRATE JUDGE 

-2-

Case: 2:10-cv-01059-PCE-TPK Doc #: 143 Filed: 03/18/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
EXHIBIT 99.8   
 
 MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION
 
 Sprott Asset Management LP (the "Manager"), the manager of Sprott Physical Silver Trust (the "Fund") is responsible for the integrity, consistency, objectivity and reliability of the Financial Statements of the Fund. International Financial Reporting Standards have been applied and management has exercised its judgment and made best estimates where appropriate.
  The Manager's internal controls and supporting procedures maintained provide reasonable assurance that financial records are complete and accurate. These supporting procedures include the oversight of RBC Dexia Investor Services Trust, the Fund's valuation agent.
  Management has assessed the effectiveness of the internal controls over financial reporting as at December 31, 2011 using the framework found in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based upon this assessment, management has concluded that as at December 31, 2011, the Manager's internal controls over financial reporting were effective.
  Ernst & Young LLP, the independent auditors appointed by the Manager of the Trust, have audited the effectiveness of the Trust's internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2011 in addition to auditing the Trust's Financial Statements as of the same date. Their reports, which expressed an unqualified opinion, can be found on pages 2 to 3 of the Financial Statements. Ernst & Young LLP have full and free access to, and meet periodically with, the Manager of the Trust to discuss their audit and matters arising there from, such as, comments they may have on the fairness of financial reporting and the adequacy of internal controls.
  Steven Rostowsky
 Chief Financial Officer
 Sprott Asset Management LP
 March 30, 2012
(Reap. Dec. 8318)

#### Charles H. Timm Co. (Marconi Instruments, Limited) *v.*United States

Entry No. 772633.

(Decided June 24, 1954)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

This appeal for a reappraisement is limited to two dielectric test sets T. E. 704B contained in cases 5544 and 5545, identified on the commercial invoice accompanying the entry herein by the letter “A” and initials “WR” of Examiner W. Rippner.

The parties hereto have submitted this appeal for decision upon a written stipulation to the effect that on and prior to the date of exportation (October 15, 1953) such and similar dielectric test sets were freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of England in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade at the following prices, British sterling currency, packing included:

> Complete sets_:_£715/0/0

> Complete sets, but without Jigs_£615/0/0

It was also stipulated and agreed by the parties that on and prior to said date of exportation the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), for such and similar sets was not higher than the foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)), as amended by the Custom Administrative Act of 1938.

Upon the agreed facts I find that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of said act, as amended, *supra,*is the proper *508basis for the determination of the value of merchandise in controversy and that such value is as follows:

> Complete sets_ £715/0/0

> Complete sets, but without Jigs- £615/0/0

British sterling currency, packing included.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Fred M. Reineman Co., Globe Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7510.

Entry No. 712519.

Invoice dated Walsall, England, July 9, 1946.

Certified July 10, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 13, 1946.

(Decided January 16, 1948)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the; value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP.


 

 Exhibit 10(i)

 








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


 



To the Board of Directors of




C. M. Life Insurance Company


 



We consent to the use in this Post Effective Amendment No. 11 to Registration Statement No. 33-45122 on Form N-4 of our reports dated February 15, 2001 on the Panorama
Plus Separate Account and of our report dated February 8, 2001 on C. M. Life Insurance Company (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the use of statutory accounting practices which differ
from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America) appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in
such Statement of Additional Information.


 



DELOITTE
& TOUCHE 
LLP


 



Hartford, Connecticut




April 25, 2001
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**727 KA 12-01776** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

IRA WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered September 12, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). Defendant contends that the showup identification procedure was unduly suggestive because he was standing next to a codefendant known to the victim and the People failed to demonstrate that the showup identification procedure was conducted in temporal proximity to the crime. Although defendant failed to preserve the latter contention for our review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Lewis , 97 AD3d 1097, 1097-1098, lv denied 19 NY3d 1103), we conclude in any event that both contentions lack merit. “Although showup identification procedures are generally disfavored . . . , such procedures are permitted ‘where [they are] reasonable under the circumstances—that is, when conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime—and the procedure used was not unduly suggestive’ ” ( Lewis , 97 AD3d at 1098). Although one suspect was known to the victim, the victim identified defendant independently, relying on his skin tone and distinctive hairstyle, such that there is no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s suppression ruling on that ground ( see People v Brisco , 99 NY2d 596, 597). Furthermore, with respect to defendant’s contention concerning temporal proximity, the People established at the Wade hearing that the showup identification procedure was reasonable because it was conducted within 20 to 30 minutes from the initial report of the crime and suspects fleeing, and “in the course of a continuous, ongoing investigation” ( People v
Bassett , 112 AD3d 1321, 1322). Contrary to defendant’s further**-2- 727 KA 12-01776** 

contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 20, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court