alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4236

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY LEE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-03-238) Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 7, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jennifer M. Newman, LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER M. NEWMAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Brian Whisler, Michael C. Wallace, Sr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tony Lee Jones appeals his convictions for three counts of distribution of cocaine base with a resulting ninety-eight month sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. Jones’s sole contention on appeal is that insufficient evidence supported his convictions. To determine if there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction, this court considers whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Wills , 346 F.3d 476, 495 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 2906 (2004). Substantial evidence is defined as “that evidence which ‘a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Newsome , 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos , 94 F.3d 849, 862- 63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). The court reviews both direct and circumstantial evidence and permits “the [G]overnment the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established.” United States v. Tresvant , 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). Witness credibility is within the sole province of the jury, and the court will not reassess the credibility of testimony. United States v. Saunders , 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).- 3 - We have fully reviewed the materials submitted by the parties and find that sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of this
Post-Effective Amendment No. 32 to the Guardian Separate Account A registration
statement on Form N-4 (the "Registration Statement") of our report dated
February 15, 2002, relating to the financial statements of The Guardian Separate
Account A, and our report dated February 20, 2002, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of The Guardian Insurance & Annuity Company, Inc., which
appear in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us
under the heading "Financial and Actuarial Experts" in such Registration
Statement.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


New York, New York
April 26, 2002
# Data

# New Table 2a

# New Table 2b Futures 

# Futures
<Page>

                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
dated March 20, 2002, covering the audited financial statements of Variable
Account D, (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of
this Registration Statement File No. 33-63935 for Fortis Benefits Insurance
Company Variable Account D on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                 /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 17, 2002
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1212 

To amend section 1126 of title 41, United States Code, to provide for 

an exception for failure to deliver goods or complete work due to a 

lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Mr. THOMPSON of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend section 1126 of title 41, United States Code, 

to provide for an exception for failure to deliver goods 

or complete work due to a lapse in appropriations, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Federal Contract 

5 Deadline Fairness Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1212 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCEPTION FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER GOODS OR 

2 COMPLETE WORK DUE TO LAPSE IN APPRO3 PRIATIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1126 of title 41, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTION FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER GOODS

8 OR COMPLETE WORK DUE TO LAPSE IN APPROPRIA9 TIONS.—If the head of an executive agency determines 

10 that a contractor failed by reason of a lapse in appropria11 tions in the Federal Government to deliver goods or com12 plete work under a contract with the agency by the date 

13 or within the time period imposed by the contract any in14 formation relating to such failure may not be— 

15 ‘‘(1) included in any past performance database 

16 used by executive agencies for making source selec17 tion decisions; or 

18 ‘‘(2) evaluated unfavorably on the factor of past 

19 contract performance.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       7,462,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,179,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,636,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,536,000
<PP&E>                                     500,418,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              30,670,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             502,284,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,505,000
<BONDS>                                    188,894,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       217,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 293,668,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               502,284,000
<SALES>                                     77,512,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            78,839,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,736,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,571,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,404,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             27,222,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                27,222,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31171

Summary Calendar

DANNY LEE GREEN,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

CHARLES MAIORANA,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:13-CV-812

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Danny Lee Green, formerly federal prisoner # 10822-064, appeals the 

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he argued that he was 

deprived of his due process right to adequate notice of the charge against him

during a prison disciplinary proceeding. The district court denied his petition 

on the merits. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-31171 Document: 00513006137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2015
No. 14-31171

 Green was released from prison while the instant appeal was pending. 

An appeal is not moot simply because a § 2241 petitioner is no longer in 

custody. Brown v. Resor, 407 F.2d 281, 283 (5th Cir. 1969). However, an action 

is moot when the court cannot grant the relief requested by the moving party. 

See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Green’s petition does not challenge his conviction which carries collateral 

consequences even after release. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).

Instead, Green’s petition alleges purported errors that occurred after he was 

sentenced, for which he seeks the restoration of lost good time credit and 

restoration of his classification level. Because Green was released in January 

2015, this court can no longer provide him with that relief. See Bailey, 821 

F.2d at 278. Insofar as Green’s claim includes a request for expungement of 

the disciplinary charge from his record, this issue is similarly moot as he has 

not alleged any adverse consequences that will continue to flow from that 

violation. See id. at 279. Accordingly, Green’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 

2

 Case: 14-31171 Document: 00513006137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2015
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, certify that:

1.                          I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-QSB of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund XI, LLC;

2.                          Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.                          Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.                          The registrant’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

a)                        Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b)                       Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c)                        Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.         Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)                        All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)                       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:       August 15, 2005

 
| /s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                       |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Paritosh K. Choksi                           |   |
| Principal Financial  Officer of Registrant,  |   |
| Executive Vice President  of Managing Member |   |

 

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 06, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 06, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16D0423. ALI RASHEED SHABAZZ v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

02CR30736
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rubin Rosario, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Wallace, J.), rendered June 29, 1988, convicting defendant after bench trial of murder in the second degree, and robbery in the first degree (three counts), and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of incarceration of from 18 years to life, and 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

On July 20, 1986, Neftalí Rivera was shot and killed while coming to the aid of the victim of a robbery. In exchange for leniency, co-defendant Orlando Nieves testified against the defendant, stating that he acted as lookout while defendant, armed with a knife, and accomplice Curet, armed with gun, robbed Anthony Weaver. When Rivera, Ramon Mercado and others came to Weaver’s assistance, defendant and his accomplices fled in different directions. At that time, a shot was fired by one of the robbers, killing Rivera.

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of robbery and felony murder. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving the due deference to the conclusions of the trier of fact, we find that defendant’s conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence, and that it accorded with the weight of the evidence *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). While there were various inconsistencies in the People’s case, none of them warrant a finding that the conviction is against the weight of the evidence.

Moreover, the accomplice testimony given by Nieves was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of Ramon Mercado, who identified defendant as the robber who fired the fatal shot *(People v Daniels,*37 NY2d 624). In this regard, although Mercado’s testimony that defendant was armed with the gun is inconsistent with Nieves’ testimony and that given by other witnesses, his testimony was nevertheless sufficient to establish that defendant participated in the robbery, and thus lends *519credence to the accomplice testimony. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 10.13
 BOWNE & CO., INC.
 Amended Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement  2008
 Granted Pursuant to the Bowne & Co., Inc.
 1999 Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended and restated December 31, 2008
 Employee: «Name»
 Grant Date:    «Grant_Date»
 «Grant_Date» «Name»
    «Shares_Granted»
 Number of UnitsStated
Vesting
Date
    
    
    

That
Vest at that
Date«Vestdate1»
    
    
    
    «vest_shares1»«Vestdate2»
    
    
    
    «vest_shares2»«Vestdate3»
    
    
    
    «vest_shares3»«Vestdate31»
    
    
    
    «vest_shares4» (the Final Vesting Date)




---



##### 



. The Restricted Stock Units subject to this
Agreement are not eligible for an elective deferral of the Settlement Date.
   EMPLOYEE
    
    
    
    BOWNE & CO., INC.By:«Name»
    
    
    
    Susan W. CummiskeySenior VP, Human Resources
 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS
  General
 Nontransferability
 2




---



##### 



Termination Provisions
 Death or Disability
 Other Terminations of Employment.
 Certain Definitions
   Dividend Equivalents and Adjustments.
 Dividends.
 Adjustments
 Other Terms of Restricted Stock Unit Award .
 Voting and Other Shareholder Rights
 3




---



##### 



Consideration for Grant of Restricted Stock Unit
 Insider Trading Policy Applicable.
 Settlement and Additional Forfeiture Provisions.
 (a) Settlement
 (b) Additional Forfeiture Provisions.
 Employee Representations and Warranties and Release .
 Tax Withholding .
 Miscellaneous
 Binding Agreement; Written Amendments
 4




---



##### 



No Promise of Employment.
 Governing Law
 Legal Compliance
  Notices
 5




---



##### 



BOWNE & CO., INC.By:David J. SheaParticipant:Name: «Name»Signature:
 6
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

National Organic Program 

Update for the Spring 2021 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Meeting

Jennifer Tucker

Deputy Administrator 

National Organic Program

April 28, 2021
Watch Full Presentation in Learning Center 

1

2

4

3

Strong Organic 

Control Systems 

Trusted People, 

Processes, and Tools

Robust 

Enforcement

Consistent and Fair 

Market for All

Develop 

Standards

Open, Transparent,

Collaborative Processes

Engage Partners 

and Stakeholders 

Advance Initiatives & 

Clarify Requirements
Rulemaking Priorities

Rules in Progress 

Strengthening Organic 

Enforcement 

Origin of Livestock

National List Rules 

(Including Inerts) 

Rulemaking Projects Are 

Most Successful When They.... 

• Align with the Organic Foods 

Production Act 

• Address needs with the most 

cross-community support

• Will resolve known market 

inconsistencies

• When the economic benefits are 

clear

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 3
Effective Ways to Communicate in Writing 

• Organization letters that reflect membership consensus 

• Sign-on letters that explain impact and provide concrete data

• Letters that substantiate cross-sector support 

• Be clear, honest about the “As Is” and why “To Be” is important 

• Think through who can act!

What Happens? 

• Assigned through “Controlled Correspondence” 

• Many hands across USDA review 

• Gets priorities and differing perspectives on radar 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 4
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 5

Call for Nominations: Deadline is June 1!

• Individual who owns or operates an 

organic farming operation (or employee of)

• Individual with expertise in areas of 

environmental protection and 

resource conservation

• Individual who represents 

public interest or consumer interest groups

• Individual with expertise in the fields of 

toxicology, ecology, or biochemistry

Zoom/Coffee with 

Board Members: 

May 4, 2021 

3 PM Eastern
Funding Opportunity: Human Capital

• Call for Proposals: 

Coming Start of May 2021

• Lists multiple candidate 

projects that could be funded 

• Project team must be led by 

non-profit 

• We encourage teaming, 

focus on equity and diversity

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service | National Organic Program 6

National Organic Standards 

Board (NOSB)

Certifiers, ACA & IOIA 

National Organic Program

Industry/Community Groups
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Peter E. Jokiel, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofSpecialty Underwriters’ Alliance, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2006;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. [omitted]  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: June 16, 2006       /s/ Peter E. Jokiel     Peter E. Jokiel    Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne Sinnett, Appellant.

—Appeal unanimously dismissed *(see, People v Lesesne,*172 AD2d 1070). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.