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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1905

BRENDA C. ARMSTEAD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JERRY WHITMORE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CA-02-1098-1)

Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda C. Armstead, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Brenda C. Armstead seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the order of the magistrate judge denying her request to

proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her civil complaint. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,

264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229

(1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May

28, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on July 21, 2003. Because

Armstead failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny her motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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
EXHIBIT 23


               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors
               --------------------------------------------------


           We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual  Report
(Form 10-K) of Allegheny and Western Railway Company of our report dated January
30,  1998,  with  respect  to  the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  CSX
Transportation,  Inc.  included  in its Annual  Report  (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 26, 1997, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                   /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                   ---------------------
                                                   Ernst & Young LLP

Richmond, Virginia
March 16, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                          58,519
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,305)
<INVENTORY>                                     21,704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,200
<PP&E>                                          39,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,189)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,797
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           216
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,149
<SALES>                                         59,926
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,926
<CGS>                                           38,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,462<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    54
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  52
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,173)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,316)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,857)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,857)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES $6,450 OF MERGER COSTS AND SPECIAL CHARGES
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 119 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2018 

Received and referred to the Committee on Finance 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would 

be detrimental to the United States economy. 

Whereas a carbon tax is a Federal tax on carbon released 

from fossil fuels; 

Whereas a carbon tax will increase energy prices, including 

the price of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and home 

heating oil; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 119 RFS 

Whereas a carbon tax will mean that families and consumers 

will pay more for essentials like food, gasoline, and electricity; 

Whereas a carbon tax will fall hardest on the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes; 

Whereas a carbon tax will lead to more jobs and businesses 

moving overseas; 

Whereas a carbon tax will lead to less economic growth; 

Whereas American families will be harmed the most from a 

carbon tax; 

Whereas, according to the Energy Information Administration, in 2016, fossil fuels share of energy consumption 

was 81 percent; 

Whereas a carbon tax will increase the cost of every good 

manufactured in the United States; 

Whereas a carbon tax will impose disproportionate burdens 

on certain industries, jobs, States, and geographic regions and would further restrict the global competitiveness of the United States; 

Whereas American ingenuity has led to innovations in energy 

exploration and development and has increased production of domestic energy resources on private and Stateowned land which has created significant job growth and 

private capital investment; 

Whereas United States energy policy should encourage continued private sector innovation and development and not 

increase the existing tax burden on manufacturers; 

Whereas the production of American energy resources increases the United States ability to maintain a competitive advantage in today’s global economy; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HCON 119 RFS 

Whereas a carbon tax would reduce America’s global competitiveness and would encourage development abroad in 

countries that do not impose this exorbitant tax burden; 

and 

Whereas the Congress and the President should focus on progrowth solutions that encourage increased development of 

domestic resources: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that a carbon 

3 tax would be detrimental to American families and busi4 nesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO §906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund VI, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 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 Partnership.  Date: May 16, 2011/s/ Paritosh K. ChoksiParitosh K. Choksi Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)
 A wsigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 10.48**

**FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT**

This Fourth Amendment to Purchase Agreement(“Amendment”) is made by and between the Kirk & Blum Manufacturing Company (“Purchaser”) and Buckley Properties Co. (“Seller”) under the following circumstances: 

A. Purchase and Seller are parties to that certain Purchase Agreement dated September 6, 2005 (“Purchase Agreement”) pursuant to whichSeller agreed to sell, and Purchaser agreed to purchase, certain real property more particularly described in the Purchase Agreement, all upon the terms and conditions contained therein; 

B. Pursuant to Section 8(d) through (h) of the Purchase Agreement, Purchaser’s obligation to close the transaction contemplated by thePurchase Agreement is subject to certain contingencies, none of which have occurred; and 

C. Purchaser and Seller heretofore amended thePurchase Agreement by written amendments dated November 15, 2005, November 30, 2005 and December 15, 2005; and 

D.Purchaser and Seller each desire to enter into this Fourth Amendment to extend the period of time within which Purchaser may satisfy the contingencies contained in Section 8(d) through (h) of the Purchase Agreement on the terms andconditions set forth herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, and other good and valuable consideration, thereceipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Purchase and Seller hereby agree as follows: 

1. Purchaser waives the contingenciescontained in Sections 8(a), (b), and (c) of the Purchase Agreement, provided Seller cures Purchaser’s objections contained in Purchaser’s correspondence dated October 20, 2005 and October 21, 2005 to Purchaser’s solesatisfaction. 

2. Section 4(a) of the Purchase Agreement as previously amended is further amended by deleting the date “January20, 2006” and replacing it with the date “February 3, 2006”, and any reference to “Closing” or “date of Closing” shall mean February 3, 2006. 

3. The period of time in which Seller has to notify Purchaser of which matters it will cure and how of those previously objected to by Purchaserfollowing the Inspection Period, as set forth in the subject Agreement, is hereby further extended through February 3, 2006. 

4.Except as further amended, modified or altered hereby, the Purchase Agreement as heretofore amended is not otherwise amended, modified or altered, and each of the parties hereto ratifies, affirms and confirms each and every provision of the PurchaseAgreement, as amended hereby. 

Dated this /13th/ day of January, 2006. 

 
PURCHASER:The Kirk & Blum Manufacturing CompanyBy: 
/s/ L. John Bertoli, III
 L. John Bertoli, III, Vice PresidentSELLER:Buckley Properties Co.By: 
/s/ Thomas Strotman
 Tom Strotman, Treasurer
#### THE STATE vs. DAVID VALENTINE.

When the Attorney General, upon an appeal by the defendant on an indictment, informs the Court, that he has looked into the record and that he consents that the *venire de novo*prayed for should be granted, the Court will of course grant the *venire de novo,*without examining into the errors assigned.

Ruffin, C. J.

In this case, the Attorney General has informed the Court, that he has looked into the record and is of opinion that he ought not to ask that the judgment should be affirmed, but that it was his duty to consent that there should be a *venire de novo.*The Court was at some loss, at first, as to the proper steps to be taken under those circumstances. But we find from what Lord Mansfield said in *Wilkes' case,*4 Bur. 2527, that it is the course in the King’s Bench and the house of Lords, when the Attorney General makes known, that “ he does not oppose” a reversal of a judgment on a writ of error, in a case of felony, that the Courts reverse the judgment upon grounds that could not prevail if opposed, because insufficient in law, and, indeed-, as a matter of *142course. That is done by adopting, as the form of reversal, that it is for the errors assigned “ *and other errors appearing in the record,”*without specifying any, and therefore, without establishing any legal precedent. We suppose that our duty is much the same. For, as the judgment of the Superior Court is superseded by the appeal, so that no further proceedings can be had on the indictment, until this Court shall have remitted the cause, the whole matter must necessarily be under the control of the Attorney General here, whether he will bring on the cause, or prosecute further; and as he might thus discharge the prisoner, he may by consent, allow the lesser benefit of a second trial. The Court, therefore, does not look into the record at all with the view of forming any judgment of its own, whether there be an error or not U but will direct the judgment to be reversed, forasmuch as the Attorney General, who appears on behalf of the State, admits to the Court, that for the matters mentioned in the prisoner’s exception, and for other causes appearing in the record, the judgment was erroneous and ought to be reversed, and a *venire de novo*awarded.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed and a *venire de novo*awarded. ■.
## Thomasina V. Rogers, Chairman of the Review Commission, Retires

**Thomasina V. Rogers, Chairman of the Review Commission, Retires**

Thomasina V. Rogers, Chairman of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, retired on April 27, 2015, at the end of her most recent term.  Ms. Rogers holds the distinction of being the longest-serving Chair and Commissioner in the Agency’s history.  More importantly, her tenure at OSHRC is marked by her emphasis on supporting a culture of collegiality and civility among the commissioners and their staffs, and for her success in achieving her commitment to resolve the ten oldest cases on the Commission’s docket (the so-called “Legacy Cases”) by the end of FY 2011. 

Having served the federal government in numerous positions over the last thirty-five years, Ms. Rogers is currently Vice-Chair of the Administrative Conference of the United States, and formerly held the position of ACUS Chair in the mid-1990’s.  Before that, Ms. Rogers was a member of the Federal Government’s Senior Executive Service, serving as Legal Counsel to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and also previously worked in White House Office of Presidential Personnel.  As a result of her work at the EEOC, the President conferred on her the rank of Meritorious Executive in the Senior Executive Service.

Ms. Rogers holds a degree in journalism from Northwestern University, and a law degree from Columbia University School of Law.

Ms. Rogers has also served as a trustee on numerous boards, including those of the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the American Arbitration Association, and the Hannah House shelter for women and children.  She is currently an active member of the Links, Inc., the Anna M. Duncan Club, a federated service club established in Montgomery, Alabama in 1892 to address the needs of African American women and children, and Jack and Jill of America, Inc.

We wholeheartedly thank Ms. Rogers for her distinguished service and wish her well in retirement.
ALLEN ORGAN COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 31.1

                       Section 302 Certification

I, Steven Markowitz, certify that:
1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Allen Organ
  Company;
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 officers 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 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 officers 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
  registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  function):
   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/STEVEN MARKOWITZ
Steven Markowitz
Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2004
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 185 (Wednesday, December 10, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that morning business be closed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.

                          ____________________
```
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

The Flight Shop, Inc. D/B/A/ Professional Air and 

Aero Facilities, LLC 

Complainants 

v. 

City of Bend, Oregon Municipal Airport 

Respondent 

Docket No. 16-14-12 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the 

above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for FederallyAssisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, 

subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is 

hereby extended to March 14, 2017. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Kevin llis, Director 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

1'1- 2./J -1ft, 

DATE 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December Jb , 2016, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of 

Time to March 14, 2017, for FAA Docket 16-14-12 addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. 

McBreen & Kopko 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, NY 11753 

Email: lkirsch@mklawnyc.com 

Martin E, Hansen, Esq. 

Francis, Hansen & Martin LLP 

1148 NW Hill Street 

Bend,Oregon 977701 

Email: meh@francishansen.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Pablo 0. Niiesch 

Katherine M. Mapes 

Jessica R. Bell 

Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 

1875 Eye Street, N.W. 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006 

Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airports Compliance Division, AC0-1 00 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
# Official Journal C 315/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.315.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 315 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5629 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.315.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 315

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5629 October 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2013/C 315/01 | List of natural mineral waters recognised by Member States (1) | 1 |
| 2013/C 315/02 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 74 |
| 2013/C 315/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (1) | 76 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2013/C 315/01

List of natural mineral waters recognised by Member States (1)

1

2013/C 315/02

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

74

2013/C 315/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (1)

76

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 315/04 | State aid — Germany — State aid No SA.29338 (2013/C-30) (ex 2013N-504) — Increase of the second-loss guarantee for HSH Nordbank AG — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (1) | 81 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 315/04

State aid — Germany — State aid No SA.29338 (2013/C-30) (ex 2013N-504) — Increase of the second-loss guarantee for HSH Nordbank AG — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (1)

81

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN