alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AKI ENTERTAINMENT, INCORPORATED, Claimant-Appellant, v. No. 99-1633 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-3956-JFM) Submitted: February 8, 2000 Decided: February 28, 2000 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Terrance G. Reed, Christopher A. Hostage, REED & HOSTAGE, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Richard C. Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:AKI Entertainment, Inc., appeals from the district court's order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction AKI's challenge to the Drug Enforcement Administration's intent to forfeit currency seized from its employee, Maceo Delmontrai Belt. AKI asserted that it did not receive notice of the forfeiture. The district court dismissed theaction because the administrative forfeiture proceedings were pending. The district court does not have jurisdiction to address claims ofownership of property during the pendency of administrative forfeiture proceedings. See Ibarra v. United States , 120 F.3d 472, 474-76 (4th Cir. 1997). "[O]nce the administrative forfeiture is completed , district courts retain jurisdiction to review the forfeiture to determine compliance with due process and procedural requirements." Id. at 474 n.4 (emphasis added). Therefore, the district court properly dismissedAKI's claim for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order dismissing this action. We express no opinion as to the adequacy of the notice of forfeiture given to AKI. We dispensewith 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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30616 Conference Calendar

TOBY IHLI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STUART F. SAMSON, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2715

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Toby Ihli appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. App. P. 12(b)(6). He argues that the district court did not apply the correct standard under Rule 12(b)(6) and that there are conceivable sets of facts under his claim which, if proved, would support a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also argues that the court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice. We have independently reviewed the arguments and theNo. 97-30616 -2- appellate record. We conclude that the district court did not err in its conclusion that Ihli failed to state a claim because his allegations did not implicate the deprivation of a constitutional right. See Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys. , 117 F.3d 242, 246-47 (5th Cir. 1997); Daniel v. Ferguson , 839 F.2d 1124, 1128 (5th Cir. 1988). Nor did the district court err in dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
Jacket: 605-136

Title: FY'19 SY'20 1HSS Mailing

Agency: DLA

Bid Opening: August 13, 2019 at 2PM

Bid Terms Discounted Total

$246,642.00 2.0% 20 days $241,709.16

$297,777.78 1.0% 20 days $294,800.00

MONARCH LITHO, INC

Contractor Name

CENVEO WORLDWIDE LOS ANGELES
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                                            [BORDERS GROUP LOGO]


                       STATEMENT OF GREGORY P. JOSEFOWICZ,
     CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF BORDERS GROUP, INC.
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Gregory P. Josefowicz, certify that the Form 10-K for the year ended January
23, 2005, of Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Borders Group, Inc.


Date: April 8, 2005


/s/ GREGORY P. JOSEFOWICZ
-----------------------------------------------
Gregory P. Josefowicz
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Borders Group, Inc.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Borders Group, Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14157]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Rescission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) To Prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of 
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that we 
are rescinding the 2002 NOI to prepare an EIS for the proposed 
construction of a new segment of Interstate 66 (I-66) between the 
Somerset Northern Bypass and London, Kentucky.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Nelson, Jr., Division 
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Kentucky Division, 330 
South Broadway Street, Frankfort, Kentucky, 40601, Telephone: (502) 
223-6720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, as the lead Federal agency, in 
cooperation with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), published 
a NOI on April 29, 2002 to prepare an EIS for the construction of a new 
segment of I-66 between the Somerset Northern Bypass and London, 
Kentucky. Subsequently, FHWA and KYTC developed a DEIS that was signed 
on June 1, 2006. FHWA hereby advises the public, after coordination 
with the KYTC, that we are rescinding the NOI for the project and 
cancelling any work associated with the EIS due to the potential 
significant environmental impacts and the lack of future programmed 
funding.
    Any future Federal-aided action within this corridor will comply 
with the environmental review requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321), FHWA environmental 
regulations (23 CFR 771) and related authorities, as appropriate. 
Comments and questions concerning this action should be directed to 
FHWA at the address provided above.

    Issued on: June 25, 2018
Thomas Nelson, Jr.,
Division Administrator, FHWA Kentucky Division, Frankfort, Kentucky.
[FR Doc. 2018-14157 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         341,505
<SECURITIES>                                       106
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,074,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    289,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,730,062
<PP&E>                                      24,296,839
<DEPRECIATION>                            (18,775,173)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,397,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          892,853
<BONDS>                                        731,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,377
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,483,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,397,840
<SALES>                                      3,853,867
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,888,180
<CGS>                                        1,676,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,484,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             122,343
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,281,533
<INCOME-TAX>                                   117,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,164,533
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,164,533
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29


</TABLE>
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-89928) pertaining to the ANADIGICS, Inc. Stock Option Plan, 1994
Long-Term Incentive and Share Award Plan, 1995 Long-Term Incentive Share Award
Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.
33-32533 and Form S-8 No. 333-63836) pertaining to the ANADIGICS, Inc. 1997
Long-Term Incentive and Share Award Plan for Employees and the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-75040) pertaining to the ANADIGICS, Inc. 5%
Convertible Senior Notes due November 15, 2006, of our report dated January 24,
2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
ANADIGICS, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2002.



                                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

MetroPark, New Jersey
March 3, 2003
Opinion issued March 8, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 7
- 00 9 76
- C R

——————————— IN RE VICTOR MANUEL LOPEZ , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
R elator, Victor Manuel Lopez , has filed a n “ Emergency Writ of Exigi Facias
and M andamus ,” which we consider as a petition for a writ of mandamus. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A

NN
. § 22.221(a) (West Supp. 2017) (providing court of appeals may
issue writ of mandamus and “ other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the2

court ”). Relator seeks issuance of the writ to compel the trial court to dismiss the indictment in the underly ing proceeding

. 1
W e d eny the petition.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Bland , Lloyd , and Caughey

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).

1 The underlying ca s e is The State of Texas v. Victor Manuel Lopez , ca u se number 1 52 8 900 , in the 33 7 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Herb Ritchie presiding.
[No. 968-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

April 10, 1972.]

#### James L. Simmons, *Appellant,*v. Wm. H. Simmons *et al., Respondents.*
i **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**

**\ AUSTI**  **Yl -2**  **GROVER SELLERS** 

**AsronNEv**

**GENERAL**

HonorableJ. B. Hutchinson CountyAuditor Bovle county Boston, Texoa Gear Sir: CpinionNo. o-6679 ? RCJ: Authority of the Cow& Auditor of Bovle County to make ~ertaln deductionsSW s"lax+y checks of Co OSf%%ers\under

~lov. \ the facts state Your letter of a recent dat from this DepartmentIs, in part,

"The Commissioners Cour all County Offlcles hour days per-%&@.

**flco ’**  nbg Is he precluded from recovering by the sactabs ~'

t,he,has,been

wrongfullydeprived of the right to @&rSorm the services or that another person has“per@mned them. Thus em officervho has been vrorigzully **removed from**  officemay recover the salary **or** emolumentsof the office;and an officerde jure stay **rMover** the amount from 8 te facto officer to vhom the money has been prld.

### 38’7

XonorableJ. B. IIutchmon, pwe 2

This Departmenthas repeatedly held that the Commissioners'Court Is a court of limited jurlsdlotlon and has only such powers 8s are conferredupon It by the statutesand ConstitutionOS this State either by express terns or by necessary izp11cat1on. Seotlon 18 of ArtloleV of the Texas Constitution, Article 2351, Vernon'sAnnotated Cltil Statutes;Ven Rosenberg v. Lovett, 173 5. bl. 508; IIIllle;p

v. Broun, 216 3. W. (26) 479’ Oalveston,

H. i%8. A. Ry. Co. v. Welds County, 167 9. W. (2dj 10848 11 Tuee Jurlsprudenae ft64. Although Seotlon 10 of Artlole XVI of our State Constitutionprovides that "The Legislatureshall provide for deductionsSrum the salariesof public offloere who pray neglect the performanceoS any duty that mpy be asalgned them by lav," XQ knov of no provlalon in the Conetltutlota or statutea of this state requiringcounty oSPlces to be open to the pub110 for any rrpeciflc

time other than for a reasonebletime. Rer do vo knov of any provlslcm ln the Constitutionor stututes of this State authorizingthe Commissioners1 Court to pess an order offloes so be open to the public six &hour &rys Urlng count hours f "c or 48 per **veek.** The Count7 Auditorhas only such povers and duties as are conSewed upmr him by the Lirwls of this State and vo know of no provisionvhlch gives the CountyAuditor the parer or duty to deduct from the salery check (au lmldent to the office) of a county offlaor any unount for the reason that HI& officer fall**ed** to keep bia offloe open to the public SIX &-hour days (or 48 hours) per tteek.

In view of the foregologit 14 the Opinion of this mpertmemt that your question should be anevered fn the negatlve, and It Ie ao ansvered. Youre very truly, .,.A ATTORRBYOEWRAL OF mcA3

BY

. C. mvln, Jr. ‘ids, ” J. ~Amalstant

BY
JR/JCP
# Official Journal C 263E/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 263E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 506 November 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 263E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 506 November 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory Acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2007/C 263E/01 | Common Position (EC) No 13/2007 of 25 June 2007 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory Acts

COUNCIL

2007/C 263E/01

Common Position (EC) No 13/2007 of 25 June 2007 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Robert Lewis MAY, Petitioner, v. John POLK, Sheriff of Seminole County, Respondent.

No. 70-402.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 19, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
259 La. 756

#### LIVINGSTON STATE BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. N. L. FAIRCHILD.

No. 51583.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: L. E. Kennard applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 248 So.2d 14.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
#### ADF Construction Corporation, Respondent, v Home Insulation and Supply, Inc., Respondent, and General Accident Insurance Company et al., Appellants.

[656 NYS2d 1010]

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff, a defendant in an underlying personal injury action, commenced this action seeking, *inter alia,*a judgment declaring that General Accident Insurance Company and Camden Fire Insurance Association (defendants) must defend and indemnify plaintiff as an additional insured under a commercial general liability policy. Defendants appeal from a judgment granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declaring that defendants must defend and indemnify plaintiff.

*916We conclude that defendants have no duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff. As the insurance documents unambiguously provide, plaintiff was not named as an additional insured under the policy until two months after the accident for which plaintiff seeks coverage. The accident occurred on January 12, 1993, but the "Request for Change” form and the subsequently issued "Policy Changes” endorsement explicitly state that plaintiff was added as an insured effective March 12, 1993.

The Third Department cases relied upon by plaintiff and Supreme Court are distinguishable. In each of those cases, the sole proof on the issue whether the plaintiff was an additional insured was an insurance certificate that denominated plaintiff as such and set forth the entire policy period, but which did not set forth an effective date for the addition of the plaintiff as an insured. In each of those cases, the insurer failed to submit other insurance documents showing that the plaintiff had been added as an insured effective as of a date after the accident *(see, B.T.R. E. Greenbush v General Acc. Co.,*206 AD2d 791, 792-793, *lv denied*84 NY2d 808; *Dryden Cent. School Dist. v Dryden Aquatic Racing Team,*195 AD2d 790). Here, in contrast, defendants have submitted insurance documents that conclusively establish that plaintiff was not an additional insured under the policy on the date of the accident. We therefore reverse the judgment, deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant judgment in favor of defendants declaring that they are not obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff as an additional insured under a commercial general liability policy. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
# L_2008239EN.01S00301.xml

| 6.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 239/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 376 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 376

  Amending the Code of Official Conduct of the Rules of the House of 
 Representatives to require that contributions to legal defense funds 
 for the benefit of Members shall be treated as campaign contributions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 1994

 Mr. Johnson of South Dakota submitted the following resolution; which 
     was referred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Code of Official Conduct of the Rules of the House of 
 Representatives to require that contributions to legal defense funds 
 for the benefit of Members shall be treated as campaign contributions.

    Resolved, That clause 7 of rule XLIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives (relating to the Code of Official Conduct) is amended 
by inserting before the period at the end ``, including proceeds 
received by a legal defense fund for the benefit of a Member''.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-98314, 33-98316, 33-98318, 33-98320,
33-99464, 33-99466, 33-99470, 333-04008, 333-82811, 333-88029, 333-92021,
333-91891, 333-39566, 333-39562, 333-39568 and 333-54136), on Form S-4 (Nos.
333-79351 and 333-34802) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-92157 and 333-35910) of
PSINet Inc. of our report dated April 16, 2001 relating to the consolidated
financial statements and the financial statement schedule, which appears in
this Form 10-K.

/s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Washington, D.C.
April 16, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  375,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,400
<INVENTORY>                                     26,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               990,100
<PP&E>                                       4,266,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,551,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,942,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          817,200
<BONDS>                                        690,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,600
<COMMON>                                       650,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     328,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,942,800
<SALES>                                      1,333,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,333,500
<CGS>                                          459,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  927,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                351,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   123,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            227,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   227,100
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### EXECUTIVE UNIFORM RENTAL, INC., et al., Appellants, v. SANITARY LINEN SUPPLY CO. OF FLORIDA, etc., Appellees.

No. 73-768.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 4, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.