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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6805

THOMAS EVERETT CRAWFORD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-96-147-JFM)

Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 15, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Everett Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying

relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Crawford v. Smith, No. CA-96-147-

JFM (D. Md. Apr. 30, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Connie S. Brenenstuhl, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 30, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, charged her with a recoverable overpayment of benefits, and imposed a forfeiture of effective days as a penalty in reduction of future benefits.

The evidence supports the conclusion that, during the period that claimant was collecting unemployment insurance *994benefits, she was not totally unemployed as she was a partner in a viable family business for which she rendered services, including writing checks and preparing documents *(see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts],*124 AD2d 884). Although there were no employees, claimant’s involvement was minimal and the business was not doing well during her involvement, these facts are not controlling as claimant nonetheless stood to gain financially *(see, Matter of DeVivo [Levine]*51 AD2d 619; *Matter of Muller [Levine]*50 AD2d 1005, *lv denied*40 NY2d 806). Finally, we note that despite claimant’s awareness of her relationship to the business as a partner, she failed to reveal her connection or activities with the business. These findings support the further conclusion of willful misrepresentation *(see, Matter of Muller [Levine] supra).*

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

# ACTION:

Notice of Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA).

*Funding Opportunity Number:*                     SGA/DFA PY 11-06.                

# SUMMARY:

The Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), announces the availability of approximately $75 million in grant funds authorized by the YouthBuild provisions of the Workforce Investment Act [29 U.S.C. 2918a].

YouthBuild grants will be awarded through a competitive process. Under this solicitation, DOL will award grants to organizations to oversee the provision of education, occupational skills training, and employment services to disadvantaged youth in their communities while performing meaningful work and service to their communities.

Based on FY 2012 funding, DOL hopes to serve approximately 5,210 participants during the grant period of performance, with projects operating in approximately 75 communities across the country.

                        The complete SGA and any subsequent SGA amendments in connection with this solicitation are described in further detail on ETA's Web site at                         *http://www.doleta.gov/​grants/​*                         or on                         *http://www.grants.gov.*                         The Web sites provide application information, eligibility requirements, review and selection procedures, and other program requirements governing this solicitation.                    

# DATES:

The closing date for receipt of applications is May 8, 2012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kia Mason, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: 202-693-2606.

      ( print page 14047)    
Signed March 5, 2012 in Washington, DC.

Donna Kelly,

Grant Officer, Employment and Training Administration.

[FR Doc. 2012-5657 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FT-P
Exhibit 32.2









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-

OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, Jack Wagenti, Chief Financial Officer of International Power Group, Ltd. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the Company.









Date:  May 19, 2006.





|                              | 
|----------------------------- | 
|                             
|/s/Jack Wagenti               | 
|Jack Wagenti                  | 
|(Principal Financial Officer) |
Affirm and Opinion Filed March 3, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00838-CV 

CHERYL YOUNG, Appellant 

V. 

DALLAS COUNTY ET AL., Appellees 

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. TX-19-01116 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Miskel 

Opinion by Justice Miskel 

Cheryl Young appeals pro se from a default judgment in favor of several local 

government entities. Young presents a general plea for assistance and fair treatment 

from the court system. However, unfortunately, Young’s brief lacks any of the 

required content for an appellant’s brief, including a list of issues, any discussion of 

the facts of the case, or any legal reasoning. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. 

An appellant’s brief must concisely state all issues presented for review and 

must contain a clear, concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate 

citations to authorities and to the record. In re S.V., 599 S.W.3d 25, 41 (Tex. App.—
 –2– 

Dallas 2017, pet. denied). We may not make a party’s argument for her. Id. “Bare 

assertions of error, without argument or authority, waive any error.” Id.

Because Young’s brief is inadequate, the appellate rules prevent us from 

considering the substance of her case. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

210838F.P05 

 

/Emily Miskel/

EMILY MISKEL 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

CHERYL YOUNG, Appellant 

No. 05-21-00838-CV V. 

DALLAS COUNTY ET AL., 

Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 44th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. TX-19-01116. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. 

Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial 

court is AFFIRMED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees DALLAS COUNTY ET AL. recover their 

costs of this appeal from appellant CHERYL YOUNG. 

Judgment entered this 3rd day of March 2023.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 SIGNATURE
    
    TITLE
    
    DATE/s/ Merton
J. Segal
    
    Chairman and Director
    
    February 12, 2010Merton J. Segal/s/ Robert
S. Cubbin
    
    President, Chief Executive
    
    February 12, 2010Robert S. Cubbin
    
    Officer
and Director/s/ Robert
W. Sturgis
    
    Director
    
    February 12, 2010Robert W. Sturgis/s/ David
K. Page
    
    Director
    
    February 12, 2010David K. Page/s/ Hugh
W. Greenberg
    
    Director
    
    February 12, 2010Hugh W. Greenberg




---



##### 



SIGNATURE
    
    TITLE
    
    DATE/s/ Bruce E. Thal
    
    Director
    
    February 12, 2010Bruce E. Thal/s/ Herbert Tyner
    
    Director
    
    February 12, 2010Herbert Tyner/s/ Florine Mark
    
    Director
    
    February 12, 2010Florine Mark/s/ Robert H. Naftaly
    
    Director
    
    February 12, 2010Robert H. Naftaly/s/ Robert F. Fix
    
    Director
    
    February 12, 2010Robert F. Fix/s/ Jeffrey A. Maffett
    
    Director
    
    February 12, 2010Jeffrey A. Maffett
EXHIBIT 99.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I,  David  G. Zahka, Chief Financial Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company"),  have  reviewed  the  Company's  Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the
annual period ended December 31, 2002 and, based on the inquiries I have made or
caused  to  be  made  in  the  fulfillment  of  my responsibilities as the Chief
Financial  Officer  of  Talk  America  Holdings,  Inc.,  I  hereby certify that:

          (i)  the  Talk  America  Holdings, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the  annual period ended December 31, 2002  fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii)
the  information  contained  in  such  Report  fairly  presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of operation of Talk America
Holdings,  Inc.

This  certificate  is  being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the
Chief  Financial Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc. with the requirements of
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other
purposes.  A  signed  original of this written statement required by Section 906
has  been  provided  to Talk America Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Talk
America  Holdings,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or  its  staff  upon  request.

/s/  David  G.  Zahka
---------------------
David  G.  Zahka
Chief  Financial  Officer
March  28,  2003

<PAGE>
# L_2006255EN.01000701.xml

| 19.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 255/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 255/7

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 178 of 1 July 2006
  )

On page 34, in the first paragraph of Article 39:

for:

‘If the difference between the trigger price in question referred to in Article 34 for molasses or Article 36 for sugar products and the cif import price of the consignment in question:’

read:

‘If the difference between the trigger price in question referred to in Article 34 for molasses or Article 37 for sugar products and the cif import price of the consignment in question:’

---
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1894 

To suspend temporarily the duty on N-Benzyl-N-ethylaniline. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on N-Benzyl-N-ethylaniline. 

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

3 SECTION 1. N-BENZYL-N-ETHYLANILINE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 N-Benzyl-N-ethylaniline 

(CAS No. 92–59–1) (provided for in subheading 

2921.42.90) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1894 IS

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 12.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                            1995        1996        1997        1998        1999
                                           ------     -------     -------     -------     -------
<S>                                        <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
FIXED CHARGES:
Interest Expense including
   Amortization of debt issuance costs     $  159     $ 1,155     $ 6,951     $12,491     $16,447
Interest on Rent Expense (1/3)                551         820       1,359       2,463       3,419
                                           ------     -------     -------     -------     -------
Total Fixed Charges                           710       1,975       8,310      14,954      19,866

EARNINGS:
Income before Taxes                         7,612      14,299      30,800      53,757      51,830
Fixed Charges                                 710       1,975       8,310      14,954      19,866
                                           ------     -------     -------     -------     -------
Income  before Fixed Charges                8,322      16,274      39,110      68,711      71,696

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES           11.7         8.2         4.7         4.6         3.6
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rene Cardona, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.) rendered January 20, 1989, *365convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to six to twelve years imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction arises out of his street sale of one vial of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer, who immediately radioed the seller’s description to his back-up team. Based upon this radioed description, defendant was detained by the back-up officers, and arrested when the undercover officer confirmed that defendant was the crack seller.

Initially, we note that as defendant failed to object to the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the radioed description of the crack seller, which he now claims constituted improper bolstering, his claim is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; *see also, People v Conyers,*160 AD2d 318, *lv denied*76 NY2d 786). In any event, the testimony of the backup officer that he received a radioed description of the individual who had just sold crack cocaine to the undercover officer does not constitute improper bolstering, as it provided a necessary explanation of the events leading up to defendant’s arrest *(see, e.g., People v Sarmiento,*168 AD2d 328).

We also note that defendant failed to object to the trial court’s adverse inference charge regarding the undercover officer’s discarding of an envelope upon which he had jotted down a description of the crack seller. Thus, defendant failed to preserve the claim of error for appellant review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the undercover officer’s hand written notes on the envelope, discarded when the information was transferred verbatim to an official police report, are exempt from the *Rosario*rule as the " 'duplicate equivalent’ ” of the official report *(People v Whitaker,*165 AD2d 775, 776, *lv denied*76 NY2d 1025). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1
Consent of Independent Auditors

---

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements and related Prospectuses of our report dated January 31, 2001,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Pacific Northwest Bancorp and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2000 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

|Form |  | Registration
Statement No. |  | Purpose                                                                                                               
|---- |  | -------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|S-8  |  | 33-99742                   |  | InterWest Bank 1984 Stock Option Plan                                                                                 
|S-8  |  | 33-99742                   |  | InterWest Bancorp, Inc. 1993 Incentive and Non-Incentive Stock Option Plans for Outside Directors                     
|S-8  |  | 333-13191                  |  | Central Bancorporation 1992 Employee Stock Option Plan & Central Bancorporation Director Stock Option Plan            
|S-8  |  | 333-24525                  |  | InterWest Bancorp, Inc. 1996 Outside Directors Options-for-Fees Plan                                                  
|S-8  |  | 333-50685                  |  | First National Bank of Port Orchard 1990 Employee & Director Stock Option Plan                                        
|S-8  |  | 333-57679                  |  | Pacific Northwest Bank 1988 Stock Option Plan & Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. Amended and Restated Incentive Stock Option Plan
|S-8  |  | 333-65839                  |  | Kittitas Valley Bancorp 1996 Director Stock Option Plan & Kittitas Valley Bancorp Employee Stock Option Plan          



Seattle,
Washington
March 26, 2001

---

QuickLinks
# C_2007013EN.01000301.xml

| 19.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 January 2007

(2007/C 13/04)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2922 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 156,79 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4541 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,65650 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0995 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6182 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 90,59 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3640 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5784 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,855 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 252,56 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6975 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8803 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3894 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,837 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8375 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6423 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5207 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0913 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8611 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9865 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 210,40 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,2554 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0417 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3615 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 762,90 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5250 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,059 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,3330 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,507 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2922

JPY

Japanese yen

156,79

DKK

Danish krone

7,4541

GBP

Pound sterling

0,65650

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0995

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6182

ISK

Iceland króna

90,59

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3640

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5784

CZK

Czech koruna

27,855

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

252,56

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6975

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8803

RON

Romanian leu

3,3894

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,837

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8375

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6423

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5207

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0913

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8611

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9865

KRW

South Korean won

1 210,40

ZAR

South African rand

9,2554

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0417

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3615

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 762,90

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5250

PHP

Philippine peso

63,059

RUB

Russian rouble

34,3330

THB

Thai baht

45,507

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**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 Quarterly Report of Black Nickel Acquisition Corp. II.
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Paul T. Mannion, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Paul T. Mannion, Jr.Paul
                  T. Mannion, Jr.
                Principal
                  Executive Officer
                
                November
                  19, 2007
MEMORANDUM

To: File

From: Tab Tesnau, EPA, ORCR

Subject: Clarifying Questions on Scrap Tires

Date: August 9, 2010

On August 9, 2010, EPA had personal communication with George F. Gilbert, Environmental 

Engineer Consultant, Kentucky Division of Waste Management, Department for Environmental 

Protection with regard to clarifying questions about his comments on the proposed rule, 

“Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes.” 

The questions focused on the typical processing required to produce a TDF product from scrap 

tires and also on related issues about metals within the TDF when used as a fuel.