alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7261

DANNY VLADIMIR RODRIGUEZ , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. D. CALHOUN, M.D.; R. LOCKHART, Director of Nursing; C. HARRIS, Health Services Administrator; MICHAEL BRECKON , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 01296

- TSE

- MSN )

Submitted : April 22, 2021 Decided: April 26, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Danny Vladimir Rodriguez , Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon Matheson, John P. O’Herron, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Danny Vladimir Rodriguez appeals the district court’s ord er s denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rodriguez v. Calhoun , No. 1:1 9

- cv - 01296

- TSE

- MSN (E.D. Va. July 15, 2020 & Aug

. 6, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### CAYTON v. STATE.

No. 26922.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 21, 1954.

Brin & Cate, Barnes & Barnes, by W. Newton Barnes, Terrell,, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.' '

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of wine for the purpose of sale ín a dry area; the punishment, 90 days in jail and a fine of $200.

Deputy Sheriff Locklin testified that on the night in question- he, in company with other officers, arrived at a certain house on the north side of a country road two miles east of Forney; that he called the appellant out on the porch and asked him if he lived there, and the appellant replied that he did. Locklin did not testify that he searched the appellant’s hduse or any outbuilding hut did state1 that he followed a trail 50 or 60 yards out in a cotton patch and there found' a sack containing six small 3⁄8 of a pint bottles of wine and one quart of wine. Locklin stated that the trail seemed to have been used lately but did not testify that it ended at the point where thé wine was found.

Officer Smith gave practically the same testimony as Locklin except he stated that the trail ended where they found the wine.

There was no evidence-that the appellant exercised any control over the cotton field or that he had ever been seen walking the path in question. The record is silent as to the presence of other houses in the vicinity or their distance from the spot where the wine was found. The record does not show that the appellant occupied the house in question alone.

Recently, in Cox v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 267 S.W.2d 830, from the same county, we had a- cáse -in which- some whiskey was found at the end of a'trail which came from the direction of Cox’s home. But, in addition to this fact, we had evidence of the location of other houses in the area and their distance from the spot where the whiskey. was found. In -that case we -also'.‘had evidence of the serial number on .tax,stamps found in Cox’s home and those found at the end of the trail. . . .

. We have .concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction and will therefore not discuss the many questions raised, as to the legality of the search warrant or the hills of exception relating to jury argument.

. The 'judgment is reversed and the cause ■remanded.-. , ...
# Cify

# of :lac£son

Mr. Scott Faulk Essential Air Service Division Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Faulk: JERRY GIST MAYOR December 22, 2014 , .... ,•

..:.·:.··

£·=,,,)

On behalf ofthe city ofJackson, please accept this letter supporting the decision ofthe Jackson-Madison County AirportAuthority in their choice ofthe proposal submitted by Air Choice One to provide Essential Air Service to Jackson, Tennessee. Business leaders, plant managers and the public citizens have helped determine which ofthe two proposals would best serve the needs ofthe community. The Jackson/Nashville/Memphis service connection has unfortunately been underutilized. The presence ofthe Essential Air Service Program serves as an advantage point to attract new industry and strengthen economic development in this region. I support air service that wil1 engage an acceptable and consistent level of travelers. Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Tammy Buchanan (tbuchanan@cit;yofjackson.net).

JG/blm

# ::)~~ Jerry Gist

# ~ Mayor
#### MEADOR v. ROBINSON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 18, 1953.

N. F. Harper, Scottsville, for appellant.

Joe B. Orr, Bowling Green, for appellee.

DUNCAN, Justice.

These consolidated actions arise out of a contract between the parties by which ap-pellee agreed to furnish materials and labor in the heating, plumbing, and wiring of a new home which appellant constructed in Scottsville. Appellant filed the first action, seeking damages in the amount of $2,000 on account of appellee’s failure to perform the agreement, and appellee, by his separate action, sought $1,310.50 for the balance of the contract price. The cases were consolidated, and the Chancellor awarded appellee a judgment for $591.87.

The contract between the parties was oral and provided, in substance, that appellant should pay appellee the cost of the materials used and current wage rates for installation. There was no contractor employed to build the house and there were no plans, specifications, or blueprints. Appellant, apparently, acted as his own superintendent, 'assisted to some extent by the man who did his carpentry work. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that disagreements and controversies have arisen.

Appellant contends that the plumbing was not installed in a workmanlike manner and that appellee, during installation of the furnace, improperly sawed through two joists, thereby allowing the floors to sag. ' The Chancellor awarded appellant $119.63- for the amount expended in correcting the faulty plumbing but denied recovery on account of the sagging floors because of appellant’s failure to minimize the damages. The judgment also reduced appellee’s labor claim by $598.75 because the court regarded that item as being too high.

Appellant insists that inasmuch as there was a failure to completely perform the contract there can be no recovery. The' contention overlooks the substantial performance doctrine, which is universally applied by the courts of this and other states. Under the rule, a builder, upon substantial performance, is entitled to recovery of the contract price notwithstanding the work may have been defective or incomplete. The remedy of the owner is the recovery of damages on account of incomplete or defective work. Cassinelli v. Stacy, 238, Ky. 827, 38 S.W.2d 980.

*119The evidence, although conflicting, abundantly supports the finding of the Chancellor upon all contested items.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS**

Theundersigned hereby certify that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofInsight Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the quarter ended March 31,2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|        |   | /s/ MICHAEL  S. WILLNER              |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |   | Michael S. Willner                   |
|   |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | Insight Capital, Inc.           |
|   |   | May 15, 2007                    |

 

|   |   | /s/ JOHN  ABBOT                                      |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | John Abbot                                           |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | Insight Capital, Inc.                           |
|   |   | May 15, 2007                                    |

 

----
BKD


**LLP**




Independent
      Accountant's Report




Board
      of
      Directors


National
      Cooperative Bank


Washington,
      DC




We
      have
      examined management's assertion about NCB's (the Bank) compliance with the minimum
      servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's *Uniform
      Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* (USAP)
      and that the Bank had in effect a fidelity bond
      and
      errors and omissions policy in the amount of $10,000,000 and $10,000,000 as
      of
      and for the year
      ended December 31, 2005. Management is responsible for the Bank's compliance
      with those minimum
      servicing standards as they relate to serviced commercial blanket real estate
      loans. Our responsibility
      is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance
      based on our examination.




Our
      examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American
      Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining,
      on a test basis, evidence about the
      Bank's compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such
      other
      procedures as
      we
      considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
      provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
      a
      legal determination on the Bank's compliance with the minimum servicing
      standards.




In
      our
      opinion, management's assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned
      minimum servicing
      standards and that the Bank had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and
      omissions policy in the amount of $10,000,000 and $10,000,000, respectively,
      as
      of and for the year ended December 31, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material
      respects.









Indianapolis,
      Indiana


January
      20, 2006







201
        N.
        Illinois Street, Suite 700    P.O. Box
        44998    Indianapolia, IN
        46244-0998    317 383-4000    Fax 317
        383-4200


A
                member ofbkd.com
            **Beyond
                Your Numbers**
            Moores
                Rowland International
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE IASIA
WORKS, INC FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN THIS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          25,308
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,020
<ALLOWANCES>                                       742
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,994
<PP&E>                                          17,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,784
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,863
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    119,642
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,258
<SALES>                                          6,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,045
<CGS>                                            5,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,811
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,865)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,865)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,865)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.09)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.4

 

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934

 

 

I, Craig L. Jackson, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.; and

 

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

 

 

 

 

Date: April  29, 2015                                             /s/ Craig L. Jackson

                                                                                       Craig L. Jackson

                                                                                       Chief Financial Officer

 

 

			 		

			 		

----
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2051 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assist in the identification 

of unclaimed and abandoned human remains to determine if any such 

remains are eligible for burial in a national cemetery, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2011 

Mr. TIBERI (for himself and Mr. STIVERS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assist in 

the identification of unclaimed and abandoned human 

remains to determine if any such remains are eligible 

for burial in a national cemetery, 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 ‘‘Veterans Missing in 

5 America Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

7 Congress recognizes the tireless work and dedication 

8 of the members of the Missing in America Project, in conVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:38 Jun 02, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2051.IH H2051

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2051 IH

1 junction with numerous veterans service organizations, in 

2 identifying the unclaimed remains of veterans. 

3 SEC. 3. IDENTIFICATION OF UNCLAIMED AND ABANDONED 

4 HUMAN REMAINS. 

5 (a) IDENTIFICATION OF UNCLAIMED OR ABANDONED

6 HUMAN REMAINS.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

7 shall cooperate with veterans service organizations to as8 sist entities in possession of unclaimed or abandoned 

9 human remains in determining if any such remains are 

10 the remains of veterans or other individuals eligible for 

11 burial in a national cemetery. 

12 (b) BURIAL OF UNCLAIMED OR ABANDONED HUMAN

13 REMAINS.—If the Secretary determines that any un14 claimed or abandoned human remains are the remains of 

15 a person who is eligible for burial in an open national cem16 etery under the control of the National Cemetery Adminis17 tration under section 2402 of title 38, United States Code, 

18 the Secretary shall provide for the burial of the remains 

19 and cover the cost of the burial of the remains and the 

20 cost of preparing the remains and transporting them to 

21 the place of burial, if the Secretary determines, with re22 spect to the remains— 

23 (1) that there is no next of kin or other person 

24 claiming the remains; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2051 IH

1 (2) that there are not available other sufficient 

2 resources to cover burial and funeral expenses. 

3 (c) CREATION OF NATIONAL DATABASE.—The Sec4 retary of Veterans Affairs shall establish a database in 

5 which the Secretary shall enter the names of any veteran 

6 or other individual identified pursuant to subsection (a). 

7 The Secretary shall ensure that the database is publicly 

8 accessible. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### W. M. (Bill) BAIRD, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 19, 1954.

Joe S. Feather, Williamsburg, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the judgment of the Whitley Circuit Court convicting appellant of the offense of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquors in local option territory for the purpose of sale and fixing his punishment at a fine of $100 and confinement in jail for thirty days.

The liquor was found in appellant’s car when it was searched under the authority of a search warrant but he argues that as the affidavit upon which it was based did not state the car was in Whitley County, the warrant was illegal, citing 33 C.J., Intoxicating Liquors, § 372, p. 677 and Baker v. Com., 311 Ky. 93, 223 S.W.2d 590. [See also 48 C.J.S., Intoxicating Liquors, § 393.] These authorities hold the property to be searched must be described so that the officer executing the warrant may locate it with certainty, and so as to enable the magistrate issuing the warrant to know the property lies within his jurisdiction. But these authorities relate to the search of real estate. An automobile is in the county one hour and gone out of it the next, hence it is not necessary that it be in the county when the affidavit is made, but only when the warrant is executed. Here, the car was described as belonging to appellant and in his possession and as “Buick sedan, 1951, maroon body and light top” and the affidavit gave the motor number and license tag number, the latter showing the automobile was licensed in Whitley County. This was sufficient description of the car.

We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the affidavit was not issued on *45facts showing probable cause. Nor is there merit in his contention that the instructions were erroneous.

Appeal denied and judgment affirmed.
<TABLE>

                                              BEL FUSE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                     SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
<CAPTION>

             Column A                Column B           Column C         Column D           Column E           Column F
             --------                --------           --------         --------           --------           --------
                                                                        Additions
                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Charged          Charged
                                    Balance at         to profit         to other                               Balance
                                     beginning         and loss          accounts          Deductions           at close
            Description              of period         or income        (describe)          describe)          of period
----------------------------        ----------        -----------       ----------        -----------         -----------
<S>                                 <C>               <C>                <C>              <C>                 <C>
Year ended December 31, 2001
  Allowance for doubtful
    accounts ...............        $  945,000        $      --           $  --           $    --             $   945,000
                                    ==========        ===========         ======          ===========         ===========
  Allowance for excess and
    obsolete inventory .....        $2,847,000        $14,586,000         $  --(a)        $10,692,000         $ 6,269,000
                                    ==========        ===========         ======          ===========         ===========

Year ended December 31, 2000
  Allowance for doubtful
    accounts ...............        $  661,000        $ 1,454,000         $  --(a)        $ 1,170,000         $   945,000
                                    ==========        ===========         ======          ===========         ===========
  Allowance for excess and
    obsolete inventory .....        $1,542,000        $ 1,644,000         $  --(a)        $   339,000         $ 2,847,000
                                    ==========        ===========         ======          ===========         ===========

Year ended December 31, 1999
  Allowances for doubtful
    accounts ...............        $  317,000        $   344,000         $  --           $     --            $  661,000
                                    ==========        ===========         ======          ===========         ===========
  Allowance for excess and
    obsolete inventory .....        $  764,000        $ 1,468,000         $  --(a)        $  (690,000)        $ 1,542,000
                                    ==========        ===========         ======          ===========         ===========
</TABLE>

(a)  Write offs.

                                                           S-1
#### HANCOCK AND ESTABROOK *v.*DAVID M. BROWN

(14481)

Dupont, C. J., and O’Connell and Hennessy, Js.

Argued March 18

decision released April 2, 1996

*949
      *Richard J. Pober,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Scott Charmoy,*with whom, on the brief, were *Ira B. Charmoy*and *James M. Nugent,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.