alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

September 12, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30176 Summary Calendar

RAY WORTHY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GENERAL LONGSHOREMEN’S WORKERS INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMANS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 3000; JAMES CAMPBELL; GREGORY LEE; MARK ELLIS; RALPH WALKER; JOHN BOWERS; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, SOUTHERN DISTRICT; BENNY HOLLAND; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. 01-CV-3683-R

--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ray Worthy ap peals the district court’s denial of his

F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 4(a)(5) motion to extend his time for appeal.

Because Worthy filed his motion to extend time for appeal within

the thirty days after the expiration of the time for appeal,

the district court could grant the motion only upon a finding

of excusable neglect. S ee Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ,No. 03-30176 -2-

987 F .2d 1199, 1202 (5th Cir. 1993). Because F E D

. R. A PP

. P. 26

unambiguously provides for the exclusion of legal holidays

in the computatio n of time only when the period is less than

ele ven days, the district court did not abuse its discretion

in finding that Worthy had failed to demonstrate excusable neglect.

See Midwest Employers Cas. Co. v. Williams

, 161 F.3d 877, 882 (5th

Cir. 1998); Latham , 987 F.2d at 1202.

Worthy also appeals the district cour t’s denial of his

motion to review the clerk’s assessment of costs against him.

Worthy has not shown that the district court abused its discretion

in finding that there was no reason to reduce the award of $75.00

in summons and subpoena fees, $727.65 in copying fees, and $39.22

in postage fees. See Gibbs v. Gibbs , 210 F.3d 491, 500 (5th Cir.

2000). By failing to contest the clerk’s award of $1,346.50 in

court reporter fees, Worthy has waived any challenge to that award.

See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Worthy argues on appeal that the district court erred in

granting the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissing his

claim. Because Worthy failed to file a timely notice of appeal

from that judgment, we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of

his argument. S ee Dison v. Whitley

, 20 F.3d 185, 186 (5th Cir.

1994).

AFFIRMED

.
Exhibit 32-1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John H. Sottile, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and
will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ JOHN H. SOTTILEJohn H. SottileChairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer (PrincipalExecutive Officer)May 12, 2011
#### Joseph GITTLEMAN, Petitioner, v. ARVIDA CORPORATION, etc., Respondent.

No. 41951.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 17, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 254 So.2d 555.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
#### Irene GUILBEAU, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley LATOUR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4014.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1972.

*329Harold L. Savoie, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.

Herman Clause, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, HOOD and MILLER, JJ-

FRUGÉ, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee Irene Guilbeau sought to make executory $1,375 in past-due alimony in accordance with our affirmation of the trial court’s decision in Latour v. Guilbeau, 256 So.2d 731 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1972). Defendant-appellant Wesley Latour again sought to cancel or alternatively to reduce the alimony. . We affirm the trial court’s refusal to amend the stipulated alimony (in the divorce proceeding) on finding that circumstances of the respective parties have not changed subsequent to the alimony award.

Latour has failed to establish an improvement in his divorced wife’s financial condition. The material facts are these: (1) as a result of Latour’s refusal to pay alimony, she converted more of her share of the community property settlement into cash; (2) she has lost her temporary job and is unable to obtain employment; (3) she purchased a home and her notes are substantially more than the rent she was paying at the time of the last hearing; and (4) she is ill and the medical expenses for her and her child are substantial.

To change alimony awarded in the divorce judgment, the prime factor is evidence of change of circumstances. McNeill v. McNeill, 223 So.2d 709 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1969).

An award of alimony is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Procell v. Procell, 226 So.2d 590, 591 (La.App. 2nd Cir., 1969). We find no abuse in this case.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are assessed to defendant-appellant.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1093 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1093

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, as the ``First Lieutenant 
           Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT ALVIN CHESTER COCKRELL, JR. POST OFFICE 
BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, shall be 
known and designated as the ``First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, 
Jr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``First 
Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Jimmy Lee MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 17, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[No. 887-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

November 15, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Charles Lindy Harmon, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 54645, Robert M. Elston, J., entered November 23, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Exhibit 21

                                 Subsidiaries
                                  VPGI Corp.
                                  ----------
                                June 30, 2006

                                                        Date
                                     State of         Acquired/
 Name                              Incorporation       Created       Status
 ----                              -------------       -------       ------
 (100% ownership,
      unless otherwise shown)

 uniView Technologies Products
      Group, Inc.                      Texas          08-10-98      Inactive

 uniView Softgen Corporation (61%)     Texas          10-27-99      Inactive

 uniView Asia Limited (60%)            Hong Kong      06-26-02      Inactive

 Curtis Mathes Corporation             Delaware       11-12-93      Inactive

 Venture Pacific Group, Inc. ("VPG")   Texas          11-16-04      Active

      Test Secure International, Inc. (formerly Online Testing Services,
      Inc.; wholly owned subsidiary of VPG)

      uniView Technologies Corp. (formerly VPG India Corp.; wholly owned
      subsidiary of VPG)

      Global Knowledge Group, Inc. (80% owned by VPG)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition at March 31, 1999 (Unaudited) and the
Statement of Operations for the three months ended March 31, 1999 (Unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       7,911,204
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    270,920
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,315,287
<PP&E>                                         406,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,825,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          998,101
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       156,844
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,660,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,825,328
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,353
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,205,588
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,173,345)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,173,345)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0464

Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

– Second Round

FROM: Scott Mathias

Air Quality Policy Division, EPA OAQPS

SUBJECT: Current Efforts and Future Schedule for EPA to Complete Area Designations for

the 2010 Primary SO 2 NAAQS

On March 10 , 2016, representatives from EPA and the Clean Air Strategy Group of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) discussed via telephone the tim eline and milestones for completing area designations under the 2010 Primary SO 2 NAAQS. Topics included: the existing nonattainment

area s which were designated in 2013; the current efforts to complete designations for selected

areas by July 2, 2016, as requi red by the final consent decree; and , the schedule by which EPA
will complete the remainder of area designations by either December 31, 2017, or December 31, 2020, consistent with the other two deadlines contained in the final conse nt decree

.

The following representatives were present:

Scott Mathias

– EPA OAQPS
Rhea Jones

– EPA OAQPs Andy Chang

– EPA OAQPS
James Thurman

– EPA OAQPS
John Kinsman

– EEI Clean A i r Strategy Group

, Senior Director, Environment
1

Filed 12/10/13 P. v. Thompson CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yuba)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHANNON MICHELE THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant. C073945

(Super. Ct. No. CRF12731)

Appointed couns el for defendant Shannon Michele Thompson has asked this court

to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal.

( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) We shall affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

On November 14, 2012, defendant threatened to burn a house down. Shortly

thereafter, the house was on fire.2

Defendant was charged with arson

. (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (b)

. ) When defense

counsel expressed a doubt concerning defendant’s competence, the trial court suspended

criminal proceedings and appointed an expert to examine her

. The court later found

defendant mentally competent to stand trial and reins tated criminal proceedi ngs.

Defendant waived her right to preliminary hearing and entered a no contest plea to

the charged arson in exchange for a sentencing lid of the low term of three years. The

trial court denied probation and sentenced her to state prison for three years. Defendant

appeals.

DISCUSSION

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of t he case and requests that

we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.

( Wende , supra, 2 5 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a

supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filin g of the opening brief. More than 30

days has elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having

undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would

result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

DUARTE , J.

We concur:

HULL , Acting P. J.

HOCH , J.
#### Robert M. LILLQUIST and Joyce C. Lillquist, Appellants, v. LIBERTYVILLE NATIONAL BANK, a national banking association, Appellee.

No. 73-624.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 2, 1973.

*465Michael L. Hastings of Parker, Battag-lia, Parker, Ross & Stolba, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Lawrence E. Keough of Fisher, Sauls, Adcock & Keough, St. Petersburg, for ap-pellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

The threshold question is whether we have jurisdiction. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying summary judgment in an action brought in a Florida court to enforce an Illinois judgment entered on a cognovit note in an action in which appellants now claim the *Illinois*court lacked jurisdiction. The *Florida*court’s jurisdiction is conceded. Rule 4.-2(a), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., grants a‘right to interlocutory appeal as to “interlocutory orders relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person.” Appellant states that there is no case holding that this necessarily refers to the jurisdiction of the Florida court. There is now. We think the clear meaning of the rule, read as a whole, compels the inference that it is the Florida court from which the appeal is taken whose jurisdiction is referred to. We need not now determine whether the Illinois court had jurisdiction or otherwise erred in some way affording appellants a valid defense.

Treating the appeal papers as a petition for certiorari, certiorari is denied. The order denying summary judgment is not clearly erroneous, and no reason appears for our consideration of the merits. See D. H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co., 1972, 405 U.S. 174, 92 S.Ct. 775, 31 L.Ed.2d 124.

Appeal dismissed.

HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Orion HealthCorp, Inc. (the small
business issuer);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
    5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   th
 /s/ Terrence L. BauerTerrence L. Bauer, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Johnny CLARK v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 53588.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: Johnny Clark applying for writs of mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ refused. Having been advised by the trial judge that a hearing has been fixed, the application is moot.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1186 

To reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 19, 2013 

Ms. WARREN (for herself and Mr. COWAN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Essex National Herit5 age Area Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ESSEX NATIONAL HERITAGE 

7 AREA. 

8 Division II of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 

9 Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public 

10 Law 104–333) is amended— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1186 IS

1 (1) in section 507, by striking ‘‘September 30, 

2 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2027’’; and 

3 (2) in section 508(a), by striking 

4 ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I am seeking an exemption from 14 CFR 91.147 (d). The reason that I am is asking for the exemption is

that the personnel that operate in safety sensitive positions on the Letter of Authorization (VPEJ6471) are all on the drug program for our Part 135 certi ficate (VPEA116U). The 135 certificate is for Prairie Aviation dba North Star Aviation and Choice Aviation. In our organization we have a limited number of trained and qualified people to oversee a drug program. In our case the exemption would not only provide a level of safety equal to that provided by the rule, but would provide for a higher level of safety. With the exemption we could better utilize our trained staff, and enhance the integrity of the program decreasing the potential for mistakes and thereby decreasing the exposure of the public to a potentially unsafe situation. In short, the intent of the rule is met, all safety sensitive personnel are on a drug program and subject to random testing, and we manage a better program with a higher leve l of safety having all employees under the same program.

Leland Blatter North Star Aviation (VPEJ6471) 516 Airport Rd Hamilton, Mt 59840 406

- 363

-6471(office) lblatter@choiceaviation.com
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34600-34601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15488]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; Review of RFA-AA-18-011--
Interaction of HIV Infection and Alcohol Abuse on Central Nervous 
System Morbidity.
    Date: August 27, 2018.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 
20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, Ph.D., Chief Extramural Project 
Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 
National Institutes of Health, 5365 Fishers Lane, Room 2085, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 451-2067, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0b3b2a9aea9b6a1b280ada1a9aceeaea9a8eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b08091215120d1a093b161a121755151213551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical 
Research and Research Support Awards., National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)


[[Page 34601]]


    Dated: July 16, 2018.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15488 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>