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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7400

DONALD M. COGDILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID M. BEASLEY, Governor of South Carolina;

MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner of SCDC; SOUTH

CAROLINA PROBATION AND PAROLE BOARD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-3270-6)

Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 19, 2000

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald M. Cogdill, Appellant Pro Se. Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES,

Columbia, South Carolina; Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric

Petersen, William Ansel Collins, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald M. Cogdill appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion to reconsider the order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) action. Although

Cogdill did not timely receive the district court’s September 1997

order, the district court was without authority to reopen the

appeal period as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Further, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying his motion for reconsideration because the change from

annual to biannual parole consideration did not violate the Ex Post

Facto Clause. See California Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514

U.S. 499, 505-14 (1995); Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto.

Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration.

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
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1272 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1272

  To amend section 507(a)(3) of title 11, United States Code, to give 
   priority to certain claims of persons that are independent sales 
                            representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 21 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Mr. Cochran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend section 507(a)(3) of title 11, United States Code, to give 
   priority to certain claims of persons that are independent sales 
                            representatives.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Independent Sales Representatives 
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Definition.--Section 101 of title 11, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in the penultimate paragraph by striking ``and'' at the 
        end;
            (2) in the last paragraph by striking the period and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(58) `independent sales representative' means a person 
        working as an independent contractor in the sale of 1 or more 
        lines of goods or services.''.
    (b) Priority.--Section 507(a)(3) of title 11, United States Code is 
amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``an individual'' the 
        first place it appears and inserting ``a person (including an 
        independent sales representative that is not an employee)''; 
        and
            (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``individual'' and 
        inserting ``person''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by section 2 
shall not apply with respect to cases commenced under title 11, United 
States Code, before the date of enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



[TEXT]
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the financial statements contained in the body of the accompanying
Form 10-Q and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       <CAPTION>
<CIK>                                          0000947429
<NAME>                                         International Wire Group, Inc.
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         $   7,161
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     94,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                       1,417
<INVENTORY>                                       66,949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 183,876
<PP&E>                                           280,841
<DEPRECIATION>                                   122,489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   617,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            105,721
<BONDS>                                          519,901
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (42,320)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     617,301
<SALES>                                          536,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 536,319
<CGS>                                            413,406
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    413,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  25,454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                41,273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   12,993
<INCOME-TAX>                                       5,393
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                7,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (2,991)
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       4,609
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

[CELERIS CORPORATION LETTERHEAD]

CONTACT: PAUL R. JOHNSON
         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
         (615) 341-0223

              CELERIS CORPORATION CONTINUES DISCUSSIONS WITH NASDAQ

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (May 9, 2001) -- Celeris Corporation (Nasdaq/NM:CRSC), a
provider of specialty clinical research services to pharmaceutical, medical
device and biotechnology companies, today announced that it has been notified by
Nasdaq that it no longer meets the minimum $1.00 bid price per share requirement
for continued listing on the Nasdaq National Market.

         Celeris Corporation is a provider of specialty clinical research
services and information technology services that expedite and streamline the
clinical trial and regulatory submission process for pharmaceutical, medical
device and biotechnology manufacturers.

         This press release may contain "forward-looking" statements within the
meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section
21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking
statements include statements of intent, belief or current expectations of
Celeris Corporation and its management. Such forward-looking statements are not
guarantees of future results and involve risks and uncertainties that may cause
actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in the
forward-looking statements. Risks and uncertainties that may cause such
differences include, but are not limited to the possibility that the Company may
be unable to regain compliance with Nasdaq National Market continued listing
requirements, including the $1 minimum bid as well as the $5 million minimum
market value of the Company's public float; and other risk factors detailed in
the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings, including the
Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                      -END-
**EXHIBIT32.1**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER     I, Jack L. Messman, Chief Executive Officer of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), hereby certify that: (1) The Company’s periodic report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2005(the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.* * *CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER        /s/ Jack L. Messman  Jack L. Messman       Date: January 9, 2006
254 La. 121

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Johnnie Louise KEITH.

No. 49884.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 1969.

In re: Johnnie Louise Keith applying for writ of certiorari (review) and for a stay order.

Writ refused. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,893,774
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              132,334,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,315,733
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             152,695,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    125,206,224
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,567
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,296,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               152,695,716
<SALES>                                     14,878,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,878,206
<CGS>                                        5,811,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,811,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,960,172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,409,276
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,151,877
<INCOME-TAX>                                   785,435
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,366,442
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,366,442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
July 1,201 1 

Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Division of Air Resource Management 

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS. 5500 

Tallahassee, Florida 32377-2400 

Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming 

Regional Administrator 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Region 4 

6 1 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8909 

Dear Ms. Keyes Fleming: 

Re: Air Program: Proposed Revision to Florida's State Implementation Plan - 

"Corrective & Clarifying Amendments" (Proposed SIP Revision 20 1 1-0 1) 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.103, I am pleased to submit for your review and approval the subject 

proposed revision to Florida's State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act. The complete 

SIP submittal package (hard copy and CD-ROM) has been sent directly to the Air Planning Branch. The 

notice of opportunity to submit comments or request a public hearing on the proposed SIP revision was 

published May 20,201 1, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. No public hearing was requested or held. 

I hereby certify that the public participation requirements of all applicable state and federal regulations, 

including those of 40 CFR 5 1.102, have been satisfied with respect to this proposed SIP revision. 

The proposed SIP revision consists of amendments to 1 1 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) rule 

sections. The rule amendments proposed for incorporation into the SIP are fully described in the SIP 

submittal. In addition, the department is hereby withdrawing its request for EPA approval of amendments 

to six F.A.C. rule sections included in Florida's propcsed SIP revision of June 23, 1999. These rule 

sections are also identified in this SIP submittal. 

Thank you for your continued support of our efforts to fully implement the Clean Air Act in Florida. If 

you have any questions about this proposed SIP revision, please contact Larry George, at (850) 717-9021 

or by e-mail at larry.g;eorge@,dep.state.fl.us. 

Sincerely, 

Trina L. Vielhauer, Deputy Director 

Division of Air Resource Management 

cc (with enclosures): Dick Schutt, Chief, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region 4
#### Norma Jean GAMBILL, Appellant, v. M. T. MURRAY and Dr. Jerome Fields, Appellees.

No. 66-1032.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 19, 1967.

McDonald & McDonald and Thomas L. Ford, Miami, for appellant.

Wakeman & Newbold, Miami, Warren A. Bishop, Hialeach, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Gallion v. Belk, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 349.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Sierra Health Services, Inc. (the Company)
      on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony
      M. Marlon, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:




The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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








/s/
      Anthony M. Marlon, M.D.


Anthony
      M. Marlon, M.D.


Chief
      Executive Officer


February
      27, 2007
#### Martin S. Berger, Appellant, *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Appellee.

Argued January 9, 1975,

February 5, 1975:

before Judges Crumlish, Jr., Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

*Herbert B. Lebovitz,*with him *Lebovitz & Lebovitz, P.A.,*for appellant.

*Charles G. Hasson,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Sydney Reuben,*Assistant Attorney General, and *Israel Packet,*Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion by

Judge Rogers,

This is the appeal of Martin S. Berger from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), affirming a referee’s decision that the appellant was ineligible for benefits because his association with the corporation which he asserts as his em*309ployer was as a self-employed businessman and not as a worker. We affirm.

The following facts were adduced at the hearing before the referee: In August 1971, Mr. Berger became associated, as president and a member of the Board of Directors, with Leisure Activities, Inc. (Leisure), a corporation apparently engaged in marketing and management. Eighty percent of the stock of Leisure was owned by another corporation, Rabeo Enterprises, and the appellant acquired the remaining twenty percent. In the fall of 1972, Rabeo Enterprises went into receivership, the assets of Leisure were sold at auction and the appellant’s association with the latter firm terminated. During the year 1972, the appellant acquired a one-third interest in, and was president of another corporation from which he received about $700 for services. This enterprise, a massage parlor, went out of business in December 1972.

Section 402 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, §402, *as amended,*43 P.S. §802 provides that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week in which he is engaged in self-employment. The leading case in the field is *Starinieri Unemployment Case,*447 Pa. 256, 289 A.2d 726 (1972), where it was held that the Unemployment Compensation Law does not provide compensation for businessmen exercising substantial control of enterprises which, upon failing, leave them without gainful occupation. *Starinieri*also held that the test of control is not the quantum of ownership of stock but the amount of control exercised by the claimant over the affairs of the corporation, and that one in actual control of the business is disqualified, though a minority stockholder. We have, of course, followed the rule laid down by the Supreme Court. *Medoff v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 466, 308 A.2d 185 (1973). That the *310appellant controlled the affairs of .Leisure is shown not only by his title of president but by his testimony at the hearing below, where in describing the demise of Leisure, he stated: “[t]hey took the assets of *the company that I had*and they auctioned them off.”

Order

And Now, this 5th day of February, 1975, it is ordered that the appeal of Martin S. Berger be and it is hereby dismissed and the order of the Board of Review be and it is hereby affirmed.
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0829**
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FirstInvestors Financial Services, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bennie H. Duck, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:  December 12, 2003

 
|   | By: /s/ Bennie H. Duck  |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Bennie H. Duck          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Herbert FRAZIER, Jr. v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 54060.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 28, 1973.

In re: Herbert Frazier, Jr., applying for writs of mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ Granted: See Order.

On considering the petition of the relator, Herbert Frazier, Jr., in the above entitled and numbered matter,

Ordered that the Honorable Frank J. Shea, Judge of the Criminal District Court, Section “G”, Parish of Orleans, act on relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in that court without undue delay (see Art. 354 C.Cr.P.), advising this court of the action taken.
#### Lucinda HOOVER, a minor by and through her next friend and natural guardian, Alyne Butler, and Alyne Butler, individually, Appellants, v. Raymond E. GATES, and Julia Gates, his wife, Edward Leblance, Eugene Salamandra, United Rent-Alls of Danbury Connecticut, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, Appellees.

No. 69-354.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 30, 1969.

Frates, Fay, Floyd & Pearson, and Gerald F. Richman, Miami, for appellants.

Dixon, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell and Robert K. Tucker, Miami, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court, seek review of an order of the trial court quashing service of process upon the ap-pellee-defendant, Edward LeBlance.

Appellee, LeBlance, had parked his automobile in front of a friend’s house in Dade County in such a manner that the rear of a house trailer attached to the car protruded into the street. The appellant, Lucinda Hoover [a minor] was riding her bicycle down the street and collided with the trailer. As a result of this accident, the appellants brought the instant suit. Process was served upon LeBlance, a nonresident of Florida, pursuant to the provisions of § 48.171, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Le-Blance moved to quash the service of process and the trial court entered the order appealed.

Edward LeBlance was the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, which accident was a result of his operation of a dangerous instrumentality within the State of Florida, to wit: in parking the automobile with the trailer attached in such a manner that the accident occurred. It appears that he should be amenable to process under § 48.171, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., for injury occasioned in the operation of his motor vehicle. See: Lykens v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company, W.D.Penn.1969, 295 F.Supp. 895.

Therefore, the order quashing service be and the same is hereby reversed, with directions to proceed in the trial court with the appellee, Edward LeBlance, as a party-defendant.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.