alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-4105

___________________________

Charles L. Burgett

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Shelia Porter; Virgil Lienhard; Kansas City Area Transportation Authority; Police

Officer Brent Cartwright

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

Patrick McInerney, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Police

Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri, and in his individual capacity; Alvin

Brooks, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners

of Kansas City, Missouri, and in his individual capacity; Angela Wasson-Hunt, in

her official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas

City, Missouri, and in her individual capacity; Lisa Pelofsky, in her official

capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City,

Missouri, and in her individual capacity; Mayor Sly James, in his official capacity

as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri, and

in his individual capacity; Michael Rader, Current Board Commissioner, Board of

Police Commissioner City of Kansas City

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants
____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: December 26, 2017

 Filed: January 19, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Charles L. Burgett appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary 1

judgment, following remand, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from an incident

on a Kansas City Area Transportation Authority bus. Upon careful consideration of

Burgett’s arguments for reversal, and de novo review of the record, see Murchison

v. Rogers, 779 F.3d 882, 886-87 (8th Cir. 2015) (viewing evidence in light most

favorable to nonmovant, and drawing all reasonable inferencesin his favor), we agree

with the district court that the remaining defendants satisfied their burden of

demonstrating that there were no genuine issues of material fact for trial on Burgett’s

Fourth Amendment and related conspiracy claims, or on his 42 U.S.C. § 2000d claim,

against them. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

1

District of Missouri.

-2-
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the inclusion of
our report related to the consolidated financial statements of Photon Dynamics
Canada Inc. (formerly known as Image Processing Systems Inc.) dated August 3,
2001 in this Form 10-K and its incorporation by reference in the registration
statements previously filed by Photon Dynamics, Inc. on, Form S-3, File No.
333-67622; Form S-3, File No. 333-49444; Form S-8, File No. 333-54254; Form S-8,
File No. 333-95479; Form S-8, File No. 333-72761; Form S-8, File No. 333-51413;
Form S-8, File No. 333-05283; and Form S-8, File No. 333-98232-LA. It should be
noted that we have not audited any financial statements of Photon Dynamics
Canada Inc. subsequent to September 30, 2000 or performed any audit procedures
subsequent to the date of our report.

                                        /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN, LLP
                                        ----------------------------------------

Mississauga, Canada
December 5, 2001
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2





                    STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned certifies that this
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


                                    /s/ Kenneth M. Bate
                                    ------------------------------------
Dated: March 7, 2003                Kenneth M. Bate
                                    Senior Vice President and
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal financial officer)
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3874 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Anilino-5-cyano-(3-(substituted)-6- 

(substituted))-4-methylpyridine. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 20, 2009 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Anilino-5-cyano-(3- 

(substituted)-6-(substituted))-4-methylpyridine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-ANILINO-5-CYANO-(3-(SUBSTITUTED)-6-(SUB4 STITUTED))-4-METHYLPYRIDINE. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2-Anilino-5-cyano-(3-(substituted)-6-(substituted))-4- 

methylpyridine. (CAS No. P 

95–406) (provided for in subheading 2921.59.80) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3874 IH

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

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

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

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
1Identification of NonIdentification of Non-HazardousHazardousSecondary Materials that are SolidSecondary Materials that are SolidWastesGeorge FaisonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyMay 13, 20102WHY IS THIS RULE IMPORTANT ?WHY IS THIS RULE IMPORTANT ?•Units that burn non-hazardous secondary materials thatare SOLID WASTES would be subject to requirementsunder CAA section 129•Units that burn materials that are NOT A SOLID WASTEwould be subject to requirements under CAA section 1123INITIAL STEPS THE AGENCY TOOK TOINITIAL STEPS THE AGENCY TOOK TODECIDE WHETHER MATERIALS ARE A SOLIDDECIDE WHETHER MATERIALS ARE A SOLIDWASTE•EPA published Advanced Notice of ProposedRulemaking (ANPRM) on January 2, 2009•Identifies 2 key factors for solid waste determination– Whether secondary material has been discarded– If discarded, has it been sufficiently processed toproduce a legitimate fuel•Discusses concept that secondary material must belegitimately used to be considered a non-waste4PROPOSED APPROACHPROPOSED APPROACH•Materials thatwouldbe a solid waste include wholetires, off-spec used oil, contaminated c&d material•Non-hazardous secondary materials that are not a solidwaste when combusted:– Traditional fuels•e.g. fuel oil, clean biomass, coal– Materials which remain in the control of the generatorand meet legitimacy criteria– Materials used as an ingredient in a combustion unitand that meet legitimacy criteria5PROPOSED APPROACHPROPOSED APPROACH•Non-hazardous secondary materials that are not a solidwaste when combusted (continued):– Materials and ingredients that have been discardedbut are subsequently processed into a new legitimateproduct fuel•e.g. tire derived fuel with metal removed– Materials for which non-waste petition granted67ALTERNATIVE APPROACHALTERNATIVE APPROACH•All non-hazardous secondary materials and ingredientscombusted off-site are a solid waste•Materials combusted within control of the generator andtraditional fuels are a non-waste•Major difference– Discarded materials and ingredients processed intonew product are still considered solid waste•Major impact – used oil, TDF, coal refuse, resinatedwood residuals8ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR FINALISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR FINALRULE•Impact the rule will have on states’ ability to implementtheir own solid waste management programs•Whether the rule could preferentially promotecombustion of secondary materials over traditionalrecycling activities•Whether the rule will impact communities withenvironmental justice concerns9TIMING AND NEXT STEPSTIMING AND NEXT STEPS•Public comment period ends 45 days after publication•Sign final rule by December 16, 2010•For more informationhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/definition.htm– Website includes Fact Sheets, Qs and As, MaterialCharacterization Papers, ANPRM
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated January 31, 1997, except
for Note 11, as to which the date is February 10, 1997, included in the 1996
Annual Report to Shareholders of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-15355), pertaining to the 1993 Incentive Stock Option Plan,
(Form S-8 No. 333-15353), pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, (Form
S-8 No. 333-15349), pertaining to the 1996 Director Option Plan and (Form S-8
No. 333-15357), pertaining to the 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated January 31, 1997, except
for Note 11, as to which the date is February 10, 1997, with respect to the
financial statements of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. incorporated herein by
reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                                      ----------------------
                                                      Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 1997
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00173-CR

TROY MICHAEL ROBINO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 45775-B

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Troy Michael Robino was convicted in this case of possession of a controlled substance in 

Penalty Group 1 (methamphetamine) in an amount of less than one gram1and assessed punishment 

of twenty month’s confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This case was tried 

with a companion case, which is the subject of another appeal pending before this Court.2 Robino 

filed a single, consolidated brief covering both appeals, in which he contends (1) that the trial court 

erred in denying his motion to suppress and (2) that the trial court erred in assessing court costs in 

this case. 

The argument raised in Robino’s first issue is based exclusively on the argument brought 

before this Court in the companion appeal styled Robino v. State, cause number 06-17-00172-CR. 

In our opinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Robino’s motion to suppress. For the reasons set out in that opinion, we 

overrule Robino’s first issue as it applies to this appeal.

In his second issue, Robino complains that the trial court erred in assessing court costs in 

this case. Robino contends that, when a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses in a single 

criminal action, the trial court may only assess costs in the highest category of offense based on 

the defendant’s conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.073(a), (b) (West Supp. 

2017). Robino contends that the trial court assessed court costs in both this case, and in his 

 

1See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (b) (West 2017).

2

In his companion cause number 06-17-00172-CR, Robino appeals from his conviction for forgery, which is addressed 

in a separate opinion released the same date as this opinion.
3

conviction for forgery, which is the highest category of offense based on his convictions. Since 

these cases were tried in a single criminal action, Robino contends that the trial court erred in 

assessing court costs in this case. However, the trial court’s judgment in this case has an entry of 

“N/A” under the heading for “Court Costs.” Since no court costs were assessed by the trial court 

in this case, Robino’s complaint is without merit. We overrule Robino’s second issue.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: April 9, 2018

Date Decided: April 10, 2018

Do Not Publish
## SERVED FEBRUARY 24,2010

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC 

### AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC. FAA DOCKETNO. CP09SW0007 (Civil Penalty Action) DMS No. FAA-2009-1043
IN THE MATTER OF 

### AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC. FAA DOCKETNO. CP09SW0006 (Civil Penalty Action) DMS No. FAA-2009-1042 

## AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER Paragraph #2 ofthe Procedural Order is amended as follows: WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhereto the following procedural schedule:



### ... On or before March 19,2010, theparties shall conclude all discovery including, but not limitedto, depositions, documentproduction, responses to production requests and/or interrogatories. 

## 1f theparties cannot resolve a discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersignedfor resolution in a timely manner...

Attachment

- Service ListFAA Docket Nos. CP09SW0006 & 

### CP09SW0007 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COpy 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOOl 

### ONE COpy American Eagle Airlines, Inc., 

### Respondent ATTN: Peter Bowler, President 1700 W. 20th Street, MD 1200 P.O. Box 612527 DFWAirport, TX 15261-2527 Francis C. Heil, 

### Respondent's Counsel American Airlines, Inc., Legal Department P.O. Box 619616, Mail Drop 5675 DFW Airport, TX 75261-9616 TEL: 202-496-5642 FAX: 202-496-5660 RenaM. Price, 

### Complainant's Counsel Safety Enforcement Branch, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Southwest Region, ASW

-7E1, RMP Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort Worth, TX 76137-0007 TEL: 817,.222-5068 FAX: 

### 817-222-5945/5092 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U;S.Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. EastBuilding Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, DC 20590 TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139
. Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 FAX: 202-366-7536

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
. I
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Airspan Networks, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) for the period ended April 2, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),





I,
      Peter
      Aronstam, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Company.








Date:
      May
      12, 2006




By:
            /s/
                PETER ARONSTAMPeter
                Aronstam*Chief
                Financial Officer*




**A
      signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Airspan Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Airspan Networks, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                    
        <S> <C>
                                 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                  
 THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
                                  
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
                                  
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                             26,275
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   26,275
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     26,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               3,358
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           63,125
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       26,275
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    3,153
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (3,153)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       (3,153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.01)
                                  
                                  
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT
<CIK> 0000853566
<NAME> BOSTON CAPITAL TAX CREDIT FUND II LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              76,470,696
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                76,470,696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,066,239)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,041,612)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Scott Dahl

118 Union Chapel Rd.

Maynardville, Tn. 37807

scottdahl@comcast.net

petition for exemption/rulemaking
NO. 07-07-0166-CR

	NO. 07-07-0167-CR

	NO. 07-07-0168-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JUNE 4, 2007

	______________________________

	ELLIS BUTLER, 

								Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

								Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NOS. 49,819-C; 50,096-C; 50,097-C; HON. PATRICK A. PIRTLE, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Memorandum Opinions

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Ellis Butler (appellant) appeals from the orders for withdrawal of funds from his inmate trust account to offset court costs assessed in his prior convictions.  We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

	 The record before us reveals that the “Order[s] for Withdrawal from Inmate Account. . .” were signed on April 8, 2005.  Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant was required to file his motions for new trial or notices of appeal with the clerk of the trial court no later than 30 days after the signing of the orders, or by May 9, 2005.  The notices of appeals were filed on May 2, 2007.  Because the deadline to perfect an appeal was May 9, 2005, the notices appeared untimely.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2 (stating that one must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the date the final order is signed, unless that deadline has been extended by motion or rule of procedure).  Furthermore, no motion (timely or otherwise) to extend the May 9th deadline was received by this court.  

	By letter dated May 21, 2007, we directed appellant to explain why the notices of appeal were late or why he believed them to be timely.  The explanation was due by May 31, 2007.  He was also told that the failure to comply with this directive would result in the dismissal of the appeals.  To date, no response has been received. 

	 A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction.  In re A.L.B., 56 S.W.3d 651, 652 (Tex. App.–Waco 2003, no pet.).  If the notice is untimely, then the court of appeals can take no action other than to dismiss the proceeding.  Id.  The notice at bar being untimely, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. 

							Brian Quinn

						          Chief Justice

Do not publish.