alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of GZA GeoEnvironmental Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.
33-63940, File No. 33-75688 and File No. 333-24423) of our report dated May 10,
1999 relating to the financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated May 10, 1999
relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.





                                                     PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP.


Boston, Massachusetts
May 26, 1999
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3112

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Kevin Lanagan, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2008

Filed: May 15, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Lanagan challenges the 151-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed following his guilty plea to maintaining a building for storing and

distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856; three counts of distributing

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and being a cocainebase user in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). For reversal, Lanagan argues that the district court erred

in applying a dangerous-weapon enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). 
-2-

After careful review, we find that the district court’s application of the section

2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement is not clearly erroneous, because a shotgun and ammunition

were found in the house from which Lanagan had sold cocaine and kept drug

paraphernalia. See United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 931-32 (8th Cir. 2007)

(standard of review), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1263 (2008); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1),

comment. (n.3) (enhancement should be applied if weapon was present unless it is

clearly improbable that weapon was connected with offense); United States v. Annis,

446 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 2006) (generally enhancement applies if gun is found in

same location where drugs or drug paraphernalia were stored, or where part of

conspiracy took place), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3044 (2007). 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3628]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14188-000; 14200-000]


Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXVIII; FFP Project 59, LLC; Notice 
Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

    The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications 
deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed projects to 
be located on the Kentucky River, in Jessamine County and Garrard 
County, Kentucky. The applications were filed by Lock+ Hydro Friends 
Fund XXVIII for Project No. 14188-000 and FFP Project 59, LLC for 
Project No. 14200-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any 
document received after regular business hours is considered filed 
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) 
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of 
the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to 
determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this 
notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications 
as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.\2\ The priority 
established by this drawing will be used to determine which applicant, 
among those with identical filing times, will be considered to have the 
first-filed application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the 
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 
20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing 
the results of the drawing.

    Dated: February 10, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3628 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
-Fi

Environmental

l|l4ay 12,2014

Mr. Wren Stenger

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, "|X75202-2733

RE: Calhoun Port Authority

Iìepowering the ES Joslin Power Station

Response to dated March 27r2014

Dear Mr. Stenger:

Per your letter to Mr. Charles R. Hausmann, Port Director dated March 27,2014, Calhoun Port

Authority respectfully requests that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

transfer our permit application for the Repowering of the ES Joslin Power Station and all

relevant materials to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

Please contact Lisa O. Murphy at 512.327 .2725 or via email at Lisa@hillcountryenv.com if you

have any question or require further information regarding this matter.

Sincerely, tuzT4

Lisa O. Murphy, PE /

President

cc: Mr. Charles R. Hausman, Port Director, Calhoun Port Authority - Point Comfort, Texas

HiÌi Country Environmental, Inc.

1613 Capital ofTexas Hwy. South, Suite zor

Austin, Texas 78746

572.327.27p5

tr'n'rr .hilk ou¡¡1Ì'\ t: n\'.conl
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7302
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES LARRY JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:95-cr-00020-2; 3:98-cv-00438) Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: December 1, 2006 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Larry Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Larry Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 7, 2001. The notice of appeal was filed on July 12, 2006. *Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability as moot and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and- 3 - legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Narcisco G. CASTENADA, Respondent.

No. 88SC532.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Dec. 4, 1989.

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the Record on Appeal, together with the Written and Oral Arguments of Counsel, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises,

IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED that the Writ of Certiorari heretofore granted be, and is, DENIED as having been improvidently granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-KSB FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         220,733
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,336,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,646,557
<PP&E>                                          14,933
<DEPRECIATION>                                  89,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,206,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,559,606
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,449,325
<OTHER-SE>                                     231,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,206,847
<SALES>                                        602,916
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               602,916
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (1,052,831)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (447,486)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (447,486)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (447,486)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)
        

</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3014

___________________________ Kevin D. Jones lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Romona Huff, Health Service Supervisor, CCS; Joe Paige, Warden, Tucker Unit, ADC; Ron Bailey, Captain, Tucker Unit, ADC; Guy Michael Henry, Doctor

(Originally named as Henery) lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

____________ Submitted: April 15, 2020 Filed: April 21, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Arkansas inmate Kevin D. Jones appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary

judgment to defendants based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court’s determination that Jones’s claims were unexhausted. See Faulkner v. Douglas Cty., Neb., 906 F.3d 728, 732 (8th Cir. 2018) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment); see also King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (dismissal is required if inmate has not exhausted administrative remedies before filing federal suit). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
Form of common stock certificate



 Exhibit 4.6 

[NORANDA LOGO] 
  

			
	COMMON STOCK	 	COMMON STOCK
	        Number	 	SHARES        


CUSIP [•] 

NORANDA ALUMINUM HOLDING CORPORATION 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
 IS THE OWNER OF

 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARE OF COMMON STOCK $0.01 PAR VALUE OF 

NORANDA ALUMINUM HOLDING CORPORATION 

Transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This
certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and has caused a facsimile of its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed. 

Dated: 

					
	 	 	[CORPORATE SEAL]	 	 
	VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL COUNSEL
AND CORPORATE SECRETARY	 		 	PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  

	
	 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:

        [•]

	
	        TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
	
	BY:
	
	        AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE



 
  







 NORANDA ALUMINUM HOLDING CORPORATION 

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written
out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

									
	TEN COM   –	 	as tenants in common	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -	 	 Custodian

	TEN ENT   –	 	as tenants by the entireties	  		 	 (Cust)
	 	(Minor)
	 JT TEN   –
	 	 as joint tenants with right
 of
survivorship and not as
 tenants in common
	  		 	 under Uniform Gifts to Minors

Act                      
                                         
          
 (State)

		 		  		 	

 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

For value received,
                     hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
  

							
	 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	  		  	
	 		
	 	  	 	  	 
	
	 
	PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE
	
	 
	
	 


							
		
	 	 	Shares
	of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the
within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

 Dated,
                     
  

					
		 		 	  

		 	NOTICE:	 	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE
WHATEVER

 SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED: 
  

 

			
	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS
WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM) PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15
Exhibit 23.5

Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                              Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800
Houston, TX  77002-5218                               Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 for Geodyne Instituitonal/Pension
Energy Income Limited Partnership P-6.


                              //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                              RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
February 24, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7289

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

AUNDRAE CANNON WHITE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:09-cr-00075-TLW-1; 4:12-cv-00333-TLW)

Submitted: October 22, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aundrae Cannon White, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Aundrae Cannon White seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications





I am the Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer of Cloud Star Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”). I am delivering this certificate
in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter year ended May 31, 2012 and filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (“Form 10-Q”).



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Cloud Star Corporation (the “Company”)
certifies to his knowledge that:



|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2012 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 that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.                                              



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Safa Movassaghi                                            
|Safa Movassaghi                                                
|Principal Executive Officer
        Principal Financial Officer
|                                                               
|Date:  October 15, 2012                                        
|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6027

WILLIE D. WORLEY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY MCKOY, Administrator, Franklin Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00484-GCM)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie D. Worley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie D. Worley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). In his 

informal brief, Worley has failed to address the district 

court’s finding that his § 2254 petition was untimely filed. 

Therefore, Worley has forfeited appellate review of the district 

court’s ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED