alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7242

MAURICE MCCAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHIEF WARDEN GARRITY, Greensville Federal Corrections Facility, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-02-435) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joan Augusta Harvill, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Because McCain was convicted in a District of Columbia court, he is required to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to proceed with this § 2241 petition. SeeModley v. United States Parole Comm’n , 278 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 515 (2002). 2 PER CURIAM: Maurice McCain, a District of Columbia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. * 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2241 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that McCain has not made the requisite showing. See McCain v. Garrity , No. CA-02-435 (E.D. Va. July 16, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. In addition, we grant McCain’s counsel’s motion3 to withdraw. 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: EPA Bristol Bay Hearing, Atrium, Anchorage, Alaska v August 12, 2014 Midnight Sun Court Reporters 511 W. 9th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99501 Ph. 907-258-7100 Fax 907-276-6727

To open files, click on the desired file type in bookmark on left. For quick saving or searching multiple files, click attachments tab (or paperclip) on left. For best viewing/searching, use Adobe Reader/Acrobat ver. 9 or higher (www.adobe.com).
Exhibit 10.10

 

AMENDED AND RESTATED PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT

Dated as of April 30, 2004

among

THE ORIGINATORS NAMED HEREIN,

SEQUA RECEIVABLES CORP.

and

SEQUA CORPORATION,

as the initial Servicer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARTICLE 1.
AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE AND SELL
2 
1.1.
Agreement to Purchase and Sell
2 
1.2.
Timing of Purchases
3 
1.3.
Consideration for Purchases
4 
1.4.
Purchase and Sale Termination Date
4 
1.5.
Intention of the Parties
4
ARTICLE 2.
CALCULATION OF PURCHASE PRICE
4 
2.1.
Calculation of Purchase Price
4
ARTICLE 3.
CONTRIBUTION OF RECEIVABLES; PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 27A/27 s

| | ISSN 1977-1002 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 27A |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Tom 5827 stycznia 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1002

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 27A

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Tom 5827 stycznia 2015

---

| Powiadomienie nr | Spis treśći | Strona |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Sprostowania |
| 2015/C 027A/01 | Sprostowanie do zaproszenia do wyrażenia zainteresowania – Pracownicy kontraktowi administratorzy-analitycy (grupa funkcyjna IV) w dziedzinie analiz parlamentarnych — (Dz.U. C 55 A z 26.2.2014 ) | 1 |

Powiadomienie nr

Spis treśći

Strona

Sprostowania

2015/C 027A/01

Sprostowanie do zaproszenia do wyrażenia zainteresowania – Pracownicy kontraktowi administratorzy-analitycy (grupa funkcyjna IV) w dziedzinie analiz parlamentarnych — (Dz.U. C 55 A z 26.2.2014 )

(Dz.U. C 55 A z 26.2.2014 )

1

---

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

Sprostowania

| 27.1.2015 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CA 27/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2015

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CA 27/1

---

Sprostowanie do zaproszenia do wyrażenia zainteresowania – Pracownicy kontraktowi administratorzy-analitycy (grupa funkcyjna IV) w dziedzinie analiz parlamentarnych

(Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
  C 55 A z 26 lutego 2014 r.
  )

(2015/C 027 A/01)

Strona 4, tytuł VIII, ostatnie zdanie:

jest:

„Umowa zostanie sporządzona zgodnie z art. 3a, 84 i 85 WZIP.”,

powinno być:

„Umowa zostanie sporządzona zgodnie z art. 3b, 84 i 88 WZIP.”.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         221,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,740,157
<ALLOWANCES>                                    52,223
<INVENTORY>                                  1,032,187
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,101,518
<PP&E>                                       2,568,510
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,293,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,376,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          977,550
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,063,149
<COMMON>                                     3,202,685
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,376,464
<SALES>                                      7,637,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,637,370
<CGS>                                        3,849,797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,849,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,510,197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,689
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                279,065
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            279,065
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   279,065
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. '1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September
30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael Benstock   
|Michael Benstock       
|Chief Executive Officer



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Andrew D. Demott, Jr.
|Andrew D. Demott, Jr.    
|Chief Financial Officer  



Date: November 5, 2004
EXHIBIT 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard H. Wills, certify that:

        (1)     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tektronix,
Inc., for the fiscal quarter ending November 29, 2003;

        (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;

        (3)     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

                (a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

                (b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

                (c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

        (5)     The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant'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
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which 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 involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.


Dated:  January 9, 2004


/s/ RICHARD H. WILLS
-------------------------------------
Richard H. Wills
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### BLACK v. STATE.

No. 27035.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1954.

W. D. Brown, Quitman, Florence & Florence, C. E. Florence. Gilmer, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for murder without malice; the punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

This cause comes before us without a proper notice of appéal. We do find, however, a copy of the court’s criminal docket in which it is stated: “Notice of appeal given, 80 days for statement of facts & bills of exception.”

It is necessary that this notice of appeal be carried into the minutes of the court. Such was not done in this instance. Therefore, this cause must be dismissed by virtue of the fact that such notice of appeal is not properly contained in the record. See Greathouse v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 245 S.W.2d 267, and Chupp v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 268 S.W.2d 673.

Because of the absence in the record of a proper notice of appeal, the appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sunair Services Corporation for the
period ending June 30, 2008;
 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;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant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 the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting
which 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 involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Edward M. Carriero, Jr.Edward M. Carriero, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### Helen McLean, Plaintiff, *v.*Gerald R. McLean, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

October 31, 1957.

*665
      *Gaspar S. Fasullo*for plaintiff.

*Ernest A. McKenzie*for defendant.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Plaintiff moves to punish defendant for contempt for his failure to pay arrears of alimony and for a stay of imminent trial until such arrears have been paid.

The defendant, a sea captain, contends that the marriage is void because of his existing prior valid marriage. He also alleges fraud, claiming that the plaintiff falsely induced him to marry her, representing that she had procured a Mexican divorce in his behalf of the marriage between defendant and his wife while he was at sea in 1948, thus freeing him for marriage to the plaintiff. Plaintiff in her moving paper sheds no light as to any of this, although apparently she was aware of the defendant’s aforesaid claims when, on learning the facts, he interposed a counterclaim for the annulment of the marriage.

If fraud alone were relied upon by the defendant as partially set out in the counterclaim, the plaintiff’s marriage then would be voidable only, and while subsisting, the right to alimony and the arrears of alimony would be within the discretion of the court. *(Higgins*v. *Sharp,*164 N. Y. 4.) But if the defendant is presently married to a woman still living and no decree of divorce as to such marriage exists, the plaintiff in the within action is not a wife entitled to alimony or to punish defendant for failure to pay the arrears thereof, the plaintiff’s marriage being void *ab initio (Cave*v. *Cave,*285 App. Div. 897; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1134). If the latter claim be well founded, the orders heretofore made for the payment of alimony must ultimately be set aside. The issues must therefore be tried before any further relief be granted plaintiff.

Motion for a stay of trial is denied. Motion to punish is denied without prejudice to plaintiff, if so advised, to apply to the Trial Justice, if successful upon trial, for any remedy based upon the violation of the order for the payment of temporary alimony.

Settle order on notice.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, WA 98101-3140 

OFFICE OF APR 21 2016 AIR, WASTE, AND TOXICS 

The Honorable Blaine Edmo 

Chairman, Fort Hall Business Council 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

P.O. Box 306 

Fort Hall, Idaho 83203 

Subject: Offer for Consultation and Coordination on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's Review of and Action on the Idaho Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels 

Dear Chairman Edmo: 

The purpose of this letter is to offer consultation and coordination on the EPA's review of and 

action on the Idaho Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels. Idaho revised these rules and submitted 

them to the EPA for approval into the Idaho State Implementation Plan. 

The Rules for Sulfur Content ofFuels set limits on the sulfur content of residual fuel oil, 

distill.ate fuel oil, and coal that is sold, distributed, used, or made available in Idaho. Idaho has 

revised the rules to include an alternative method to comply with the limits. Sources must apply 

to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, through the permitting process, to request the 

alternative compliance method. To obtain approval to use a fuel with higher sulfur content, a 

source must show that, by installing a control device, hourly controlled emissions will be less 

than the maximum hourly emissions from combusting complying fuels. 

This consultation and coordination process will be conducted in accordance with the EPA Policy 

on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes and the EPA Region 1 0 Tribal Consultation 

and Coordination Procedures. We welcome any input you may have for us as we move forward 

on this action. If you would like to consult on this EPA action, or would like more information, 

please have your staff contact Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357 or hall.kristin@epa.gov by May 23, 

2016. I appreciate your tribe's consideration to consult with the EPA on this air quality work. 

Sincerely, / 

/ 

(__-~~ 

/ ~s,AJ6::~;/ of Air, Waste and Toxics 

cc: Mr. Roger Turner 

Air Quality Manager, Land Use- Air Quality 

Ms. Lori Howell 

Technician, Land Use- Air Quality
**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 4, 2005,
      except as to note 11 which is dated as of June 3, 2005, with respect to the
      financial statements of Delex Therapeutics Inc. that are incorporated by
      reference in the Amended Form 40-F of YM BioSciences Inc. as filed with the
      United States Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3,
      2006.




Toronto, Canada
              
              /s/ Ernst
&
                Young LLPFebruary
                3,
                2006
              
              Chartered
                Accountants
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CRUSO R. WALLACE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,

District Judge. (5:02-cr-00101; 5:04-cv-00732)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cruso R. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Cruso R. Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

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). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Wallace has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We deny Wallace’s motion for abeyance and

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
EXHIBIT 15

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of
Superior Uniform Group, Inc. and subsidiary as of March 31, 2008 and for the periods ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, as indicated in our report dated April 24, 2008; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement on
No. 33-105906, effective June 6, 2003, on Form S-8. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by
an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
|                      
|Tampa, Florida        
|April 24, 2008