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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7302** 

WESLEY CARROLL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal fr om the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Danville

. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. ( 4:11

- cv
- 00022

- JLK )

Submitted : January 4, 2012 Decided: January 12, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN , Circuit Ju dges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Wesley Carroll, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Wesley Carroll appeals the district court ’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss his civil complaint.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons s tated by the district

court. See Carroll v. Dep’t of the Army , No. 4:11

- cv
- 00022

- JLK
(W.D. Va. Aug. 22, 2011). We deny Carroll’s pending motions.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Mrs. Ruby CUSIMANO, wife of and Jules J. ARMANT v. Osway SMITH et al.

No. 5602.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1974.

George J. Kambur, New Orleans, for plainti f f s-appellees.

Alvin R. Christovich, C. B. Ogden, II, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before BAILES, FLEMING and BRADLEY, JJ. Pro Tem.

C. WILLIAM BRADLEY, Judge Pro ' Tem.

On December 10, 1968, at approximately 7:00 p. m., a New Orleans Public Service bus, traveling toward Canal Street on St. Claude Avenue, and an automobile, traveling toward the river on Elysian Fields Avenue, collided at the intersection. Plaintiff, a guest passenger in the automobile, sued the bus driver, New Orleans Public Service, Inc., and the insurer of the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant New Orleans Public Service, Inc. From this judgment, New Orleans Public Service, Inc. appeals. We affirm.

*343The issues raised on appeal are the contributory negligence of the driver of the guest vehicle and the legal operation of contribution between in solido tort feasors.

The testimony of Caron, driver of the automobile, Armant, the passenger in the automobile, Jeansonne, a disinterested eyewitness, and Bowman, a disinterested witness, had the Caron vehicle crossing the intersection on a green light when its right of way was obstructed by the bus that had proceeded across the neutral ground and onto the right of way of the Caron vehicle even though a red light had barred its forward motion as it entered the neutral ground.

We find no manifest error in the trial court’s decision that the driver of the guest vehicle was not contributorily negligent. Discussion of the legal operation of contribution between in solido tort feasors is therefore unnecessary.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
M14004 – Chemical 1 

Chemical Structure 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
#### John David PRESLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2411.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 11, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Carl EIERLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1163.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 16, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1978.

Martin S. Saxon, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and HUB-BART, JJ.

HUBBART, Judge.

The defendant Carl Eierle appeals a conviction for first degree murder and a life imprisonment sentence after a jury trial before the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. The defendant makes two contentions on appeal: (1) a judgment of acquittal should have been entered upon motion because the evidence was insufficient to establish that the death of the deceased was caused by the criminal agency of another, and (2) the medical examiner’s testimony at trial that the deceased met her death through suffocation or strangulation was inadmissible in evidence. We cannot agree with either contention and affirm.

A careful review of the record reveals that the deceased wife of the defendant was discovered dead by the police lying face down in a cemented septic tank eighteen inches below the ground in a freshly dug area in the defendant’s back yard. The defendant had been seen by a neighbor shortly prior thereto digging in the area. The defendant also had threatened to kill the deceased and was last seen in her company shortly prior to the discovery of the dead body. An autopsy was performed and according to the medical examiner the deceased met her death by suffocation or *1161strangulation. This was more than sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased met her death through the criminal agency of another. *Sweetser*v. *State,*258 So.2d 287 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); *Freeman v. State,*101 So.2d 887 (Fla.2d DCA 1958).

As to the admissibility of the medical examiner’s testimony, a review of the record shows that the witness was a qualified pathologist, that he conducted a thorough autopsy on the deceased’s body, and that by a process of elimination he concluded, based on a reasonable medical certainty, that the deceased had died from suffocation or strangulation. He found no evidence of disease, trauma to the body, obstruction to the throat, drugs, insect or snake bites. He did state on cross-examination that he regarded his opinion as a “guess”, but he clarified this testimony on redirect examination by stating that this was his opinion based on a reasonable medical certainty.

A medical witness may reach a conclusion by the process of elimination through excluding natural causes of death. This process of elimination will not render the witness’ conclusion inadmissible, but merely affects the weight to be given his testimony which must be determined by the jury. *Vaillancourt*v. *State,*288 So.2d 216 (Fla.1974).

The judgment of conviction and sentence appealed from is affirmed.
From: gthomas@bp.Guardian.com To: Hancy, Cindy Wang Subject: Re: FW: Guardian Kingman Preliminary Test Results Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 1:17:55 PM Attachments: 26A.pdf 29 w particulate.pdf 0061.pdf

Ms. Wang,

We are not claiming them as CBI.

Kind regards,

Grover Thomas

"Hancy, Cindy Wang" <chancy@rti.org> To <gthomas@bp.Guardian.com> 02/22/2012 12:43 cc PM Subject FW: Guardian Kingman Preliminary Test Results

Mr. Thomas,

This was forwarded to me by Susan Fairchild. I noticed there are production rates included and I wanted to double check that you are not claiming these as CBI.

Thanks,

----- Forwarded by Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/22/2012 10:49 AM

-----

From: gthomas@bp.Guardian.com To: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/17/2012 05:39 PM Subject: Guardian Kingman Preliminary Test Results

Susan, as you requested, I am forwarding the preliminary test results from the Kingman furnace stack. See the pdf files attached to the email below.The Method 0061 chrome results were slightly lower compared to the Method 29 chrome results for the other three melters already tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood & Winnsboro) but the same order of magnitude.

The Method 29 chrome results were higher compared to the Method 29 chrome results for the other three melters already tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood & Winnsboro) but the same order of magnitude as the Winnsboro melter.

The vaporous back half chrome emissions are an order of magnitude lower, so, in our case, the filterable front half represents over 80% of the chrome.

The hexavalent chrome emissions were slightly higher compared to the other three melters already tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood & Winnsboro) but the same order of magnitude and almost no difference.

We also tested HF and HCL and they were an order of magnitude lower compared to the Albion, Inwood and Winnsboro furnaces.

In sum, nothing surprising. The emissions for the four (4) plants tested so far are about the same.

I am headed to Inwood next week for testing of that furnace. As time permits, I will forward the Kingman test report when it becomes available.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Grover Thomas

----- Forwarded by Grover Thomas/BP/Guardian_Industries on 02/17/2012 05:01 PM -----

"Tony Blanton"

<tony@integrityai

r.net> To <gthomas@bp.Guardian.com>

02/17/2012 03:41

cc PM "Jim Lewis" <jim@integrityair.net>

Subject Kingman Results

Please respond to

"Tony Blanton"

<tony@integrityai

r.net>Grover,

Please see attached the results from the Kingman Melter sampling.

Thank you

J.A. "Tony" Blanton, QSTI President Integrity Air Monitoring, Inc. PO Box 559 Huntersville, NC 28070-0559 www.integrityair.net (704) 948-2359 (704) 948-2361 fax (704) 618-5082 mobile(See attached file: 26A.pdf)(See attached file: 29 w particulate.pdf)(See attached file: 0061.pdf) (See attached file: 26A.pdf)(See attached file: 29 w particulate.pdf) (See attached file: 0061.pdf) (See attached file: 26A.pdf)(See attached file: 29 w particulate.pdf)(See attached file: 0061.pdf)
|EXHIBIT 10.3                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO THE
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION/TIMBER GROUP
1997 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

|WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8 of the Georgia-Pacific Corporation/Timber Group 1997 Long Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), the Board of Directors of Georgia-Pacific Corporation ("Board") has
reserved the right to amend the Plan; and                                                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan to provide that any Award granted pursuant to the Plan shall become fully vested immediately prior to the Effective Time under the Agreement and Plan of
Merger by and among Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corporation and the Spincos (as defined therein) dated July 18, 2000;          
|NOW THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the Plan as follows:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|1.    Section 6(b) of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence to the end thereof:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|Notwithstanding the terms of any Award Agreement, any Award granted pursuant to the provisions of this Plan shall become fully vested immediately prior to the Effective Time under the Agreement and
Plan of Merger by and among Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc and the Spincos (as defined therein) dated July 18, 2000.
# C_2023015EN.01001801.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-578/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 4 - Member State legislation on business property taxation - Methods for valuation of property used to calculate the basis of assessment of the rate payable - Complaint from wind farm operators - Allegation of an under-assessment of the basis of assessment for the business rate payable by fossil fuel electricity producers and, consequently, of a level of business rate of those electricity generators lower than that of other electricity producers due to the choice of valuation method used - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision finding that there is no State aid - No economic and selective advantage - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ - Extent of the European Commission’s investigative duty - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to conduct the investigation procedure diligently and impartially - Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union)

(2023/C 15/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (represented by: M. Segura Catalán, abogada, and M. Clayton, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Georgiopoulos, S. Noë and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd and Greenoge Windfarm Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd and Greenoge Windfarm Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, I, the
undersigned Acting Chief Financial Officer of Earth Search Sciences, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Date:  July 14, 2006                    /s/ Tami J Story
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Tami J Story
                                        Acting Chief Financial Officer
No. 10670.

#### The City of Galion *v.*Miller.

Decided January 26, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Crawford county.

*Mr. L. C. Barker,*city solicitor, and *Mr. W. J. Geer, for*plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Skiles, Green & SIdles*and *Messrs. Finley & Gallinger,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis and Si-iauck, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 544

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 28, 1994.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3171) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture

to reorganize the Department of Agriculture, and for other

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

All points of order against consideration of the bill are

waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the

amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order

to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment

under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of

a substitute recommended by the Committee on Agriculture

now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the na-
2

HRES 544 EH

ture of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of

order against the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have

been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in

the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of

the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the

nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7485

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT ROOSEVELT MILLER, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CR-92-203-G, CA-94-569-2)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Roosevelt Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane

Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) petition. Appellant's case was

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



### No. 96-40751

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

### Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus QUADRO CORPORATION, ET AL., 

### Defendants, Q UADRO CORPORATION; WADE L. QUATTLEBAUM; RAYMOND L. FISK; MALCOLM S. ROE, 

### Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (1:96-CV-38) September 8, 1997
Before POLITZ, 

### Chief Judge, BENAVIDES and PARKER, 

### Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *



### T his matter is on appeal by Quadro Corporation, et al., of a permanent2



### injunction issued upon petition of the United States of America. Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent parts of the record, and finding neither reversible error nor abuse of discretion, the judgment appealed is
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-94488, 33-94490, 33-94492 and 33-94494) pertaining to the
Amended and Restated 1993 Stock Option Plan, the 1994 Executive Stock Option
Plan, the 1995 Director Stock Option Plan and the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of Open Environment Corporation of our report dated March 27, 1996, except
as to the fourth paragraph of Note 1, as to which the date is October 4, 1996,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Open
Environment Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1995 as amended in this Form 10-K/A.    

                                                    
                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP     

Boston, Massachusetts
    
October 7, 1996
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

RE: RE APPOINTMENT TO COURT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE : : : No. 645 SUPREME C OURT RULES DOCKET **O R D E R PER CURIA** **M:**

AND NOW , this 15 th day of A ugust , 201 4 , The Honorable Charles A. Clement, Jr., Cumberland County, is hereby re appointed as a member of the Court of Judicial Discipline for a term expiring April 8, 2015 .
#### Augustine De GENNARO, Petitioner, v. MILLER TRAILERS, INC., a Florida corporation, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38588.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 24, 1969.

George F. Taylor, Jr., of Spencer & Taylor, Miami, for petitioner.

Douglas M. Carlton, Miami, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date April 4, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petitions, records and briefs leads us to conclude that *808there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

Accordingly, the petitions for certiorari and attorney’s fee are hereby denied.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                         Subsidiaries of ANADIGICS, Inc.

                                                  State of Jurisdiction
Name of Subsidiary                                  of Incorporation and % Owned

ANADIGICS (U.K.) Limited                          United Kingdom            100%
ANADIGICS, Limited                                Israel                    100%
ANADIGICS Denmark ApS                             Denmark                   100%
ANADIGICS Acquisition Corp.                       Delaware                  100%
ANADIGICS Holding Corp.                           Delaware                  100%
Broadband & Wireless Investors, Incorporated      Delaware                  100%
Integral Pathway, Inc.                            New Jersey                100%
Telcom Devices Corp.                              California                100%