alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CITY OF BAYONNE, RESPONDENT, v. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE, PETITIONER.

June 28, 1960.

*Mr. David D. Furman*and *Mr. William L. Boyan*for the petitioner.

*Mr. William Rubin*for the respondent.

Granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roque RANGEL, Jr., also known as Rock, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-10124

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 23, 2011.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Denise Bridges Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roque Rangel, Jr., Inez, KY, pro se.

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roque Rangel, Jr., federal prisoner # 28301-177, has moved for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in which he sought reconsideration of this court’s dismissal, for lack of a timely notice of appeal, of his appeal in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. Because Rangel essentially seeks to reopen the time for filing a timely notice of appeal, he does not need a COA to appeal the district court’s ruling. *See Dunn v. Cockrell,*302 F.3d 491, 492-93 (5th Cir.2002). His motion for a COA is therefore DENIED as unnecessary.

When necessary, this court must sua sponte examine the basis of its jurisdiction. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Rangel’s Rule 60(b) motion, submitted for mailing on December 17, 2010, and directed to this court, if liberally construed, was sufficient to evince timely his intent to appeal from the denial of the *159Rule 60(b) motion filed in the district court. *See Bailey v. Cain,*609 F.3d 768, 765-66 (5th Cir.2010); *Eleby v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*795 F.2d 411, 412 (5th Cir.1986); Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (c), and (d). We, therefore, have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Rangel’s Rule 60(b) motion. Our review is for an abuse of discretion. *Eleby,*795 F.2d at 414.

Rangel renews his claim that the applicable limitations period for filing a timely notice of appeal is subject to equitable tolling, in light of *Holland v. Florida,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010), and that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he was in transit when he was required to file a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his § 2255 motion. Rangel is mistaken. The time for filing a notice of appeal in a civil case is not subject to equitable tolling, and a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal. *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 213-14, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Moreover, the district court was without power to correct any error allegedly made by this court with respect to this court’s jurisdiction.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rangel’s Rule 60(b) motion. *See Eleby,*795 F.2d at 414. Rangel’s appeal lacks any arguable merit and is frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, it is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Bryan M. Lemley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation;

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 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.



|                   |  |                                                                  
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2007 |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                                              
|                   |  | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Isiah Finch, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 918]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Jeffrey R. Merrill, A.J.), rendered January 27, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Although defendant did not waive the right to appeal and thus his challenge to the severity of the sentence is properly before us *(see*
      *1698
      *generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION  The undersigned hereby
certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 of PHL Variable Insurance
Company (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof 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
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Philip K. Polkinghorn/s/ Peter A. HofmannName:Philip K. PolkinghornName:Peter A. HofmannTitle:PresidentTitle:Senior Executive Vice President andChief Financial OfficerDate:May 14, 2008Date:May 14, 2008  A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to PHL Variable Insurance Company and will be retained by PHL Variable Insurance Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 26 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 158
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 26

Expressing the sense of Congress that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy 
Geithner no longer holds the confidence of Congress or of the people of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 7, 2011

Mr. Paul introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the 
                               first time

                           September 8, 2011

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy 
Geithner no longer holds the confidence of Congress or of the people of 
                           the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy 
Geithner no longer holds the confidence of Congress or of the people of 
the United States.

                                                       Calendar No. 158

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 26

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy 
Geithner no longer holds the confidence of Congress or of the people of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 8, 2011

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
Exhibit 99.1

NEWS RELEASE

For further information contact:



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Kerry J. Chauvin        |  | Robin A. Seibert       
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer
|985.872.2100            |  | 985.872.2100           



FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JULY 11, 2008

GULF ISLAND FABRICATION, INC.

TO ANNOUNCE EARNINGS RESULTS

AND QUARTERLY CONFERENCE CALL

Houma, LA  (BUSINESS WIRE)  July 11,
2008Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (NASDAQ: GIFI), will announce 2008 second quarter earnings after the market close on Thursday, July 24, 2008.

The management of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. will hold a conference call on Friday, July 25, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Central Time (10:00 a.m. Eastern Time) to discuss the Companys financial results for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The call is accessible by webcast through CCBN and by dialing the following:



|         |  |                   
|-------- |  | ------------------
|Dial In: |  | 1.888.661.5127    
|         | 
|Webcast: |  | www.gulfisland.com

A digital rebroadcast of the call is available two hours after the call and ending August 8, 2008 by dialing:



|                 |  |               
|---------------- |  | --------------
|Phone Number:    |  | 1.888.203.1112
|                 | 
|Replay Passcode: |  | 8124669       

Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., based in Houma, Louisiana, is a leading fabricator of offshore drilling and
production platforms, hull and/or deck sections of floating production platforms and other specialized structures used in the development and production of offshore oil and gas reserves. These structures include jackets and deck sections of fixed
production platforms; hull and/or deck sections of floating production platforms (such as tension leg platforms (TLPs)), SPARs, FPSOs, piles, wellhead protectors, subsea templates and various production, compressor and
utility modules, offshore living quarters, tanks and barges. The Company also provides offshore interconnect pipe hook-up, inshore marine construction, manufacture and repair of pressure vessels, heavy lifts such as ship integration and TLP module
integration, loading and offloading of jack-up drilling rigs, semi-submersible drilling rigs, TLPs, SPARs, or other similar cargo, onshore and offshore scaffolding, piping insulation services, and steel warehousing and sales.
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, Texas 77002

To: Chris Daniel February 11, 2015

County: Harris (Criminal)

Subject: RETURN OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

Please acknowledge the receipt of the original exhibits listed below. Please sign and return 

the original to this court.

14-09-00620-CR Edgar Josias Vasquez v The State of Texas 1145289

State's Exhibit 5, a DVD

Received by: ________________________________________

Received on: ________________________________________
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 11.1


           HOME HEALTH CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                   Computation of Primary Earnings Per Share
         for each of the three years in the period ended June 30, 1997

The following calculation is submitted in accordance with the Securities Act of
1934:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               1995            1996           1996(1)          1997
                                           ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
<S>                                        <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net income                                    $  758          $3,294          $2,133          $2,814
Write-off of discount on preferred stock           -            (787)           (787)              -
Dividends on preferred stock                    (123)           (117)           (117)             (6)
                                           ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
Net income available to common
 stockholders                                 $  635          $2,390          $1,229          $2,808
                                           ============    ============    ============    ============
Weighted average number of maximum
 shares outstanding during year                3,453           6,535           6,535           8,549
Weighted average number of maximum
 shares subject to exercise under
 outstanding stock options and
 warrants, net of treasury shares
 assumed repurchased                             223             118             118             124
                                           ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
Weighted average number of common and
 common equivalent shares outstanding          3,676           6,653           6,653           8,673
                                           ============    ============    ============    ============
Net income per share                          $ 0.17           $0.36          $ 0.18          $ 0.32
                                           ============    ============    ============    ============
</TABLE>

(1) Reflects net income and net income per share after extraordinary loss of
    $1,160 on early extinguishment of indebtedness.
DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED DUE TO ONE OR MORE REASONS LISTED BELOW:

9 TOO VOLUMINOUS

9 TRANSCRIPT 

9 QUALITY NOT LEGIBLE

9 FONT TOO SMALL

9 PHOTOGRAPHS

9 OTHER _____________________________________________________

TO VIEW THE DOCUMENT YOU MUST OBTAIN THE CASE FILE AT THE

CLERK’S OFFICE. THE CLERK’S OFFICE IS OPEN FROM 8:30 AM. TO 4:30 PM.

MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY EXCEPT FOR LEGAL HOLIDAYS. TO OBTAIN A

COPY YOU CAN CALL THE CLERK’S OFFICE SERVICE CENTER AT

312-435-5699.

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1175 Filed: 02/07/08 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:24320
#### Sharon J. GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADVOCATE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, d/b/a Advocate Christ Hospital and Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-1960.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 20, 2011.*

Decided Oct. 20, 2011.

Sharon J. Gray, Chicago, IL, pro se.

Michael L. Resis, Attorney, Smitha-mundsen, LL, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge.

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

ORDER

Sharon Gray sued her former employer, Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, claiming that she suffered discrimination because of disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. Although Gray *237filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before filing suit, *id.*§§ 2000e — 5(e)(1), 12117(a), she received a right-to-sue letter from the agency more than seventeen months before she filed her lawsuit. Because the ADA ordinarily requires that an aggrieved party sue within ninety days of receiving from the EEOC notice of the right to sue, *see id.*§§ 2000e — 5(f)(1), 12117(a), the district court ordered Gray to explain why her complaint should not be dismissed due to its apparent untimeliness. Gray argued in a response that the continuing-violation doctrine made her suit timely, *see generally Hardin v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,*167 F.3d 340, 344 (7th Cir.1999), but the district court rejected that contention and dismissed the action.

Gray took no further action until four months later when she moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate the judgment. She repeated her contention that her complaint alleged a continuing violation and also referred to the doctrine of equitable tolling. The district court denied Gray’s motion after concluding that it presented no basis for relief. Gray then filed a notice of appeal, but that appeal was timely only concerning the denial of her Rule 60(b) motion and not the underlying order dismissing her lawsuit. *See Eskridge v. Cook County,*577 F.3d 806, 809 (7th Cir.2009).

Rule 60(b) cannot be used to make arguments that could have been raised on appeal or in a timely motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). *Stoller v. Pure Fishing Inc.,*528 F.3d 478, 480 (7th Cir.2008); *Bell v. Eastman Kodak Co.,*214 F.3d 798, 801 (7th Cir.2000); *Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of Gen. Motors Corp.,*51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir.1995). Yet this is precisely what Gray tried to do in her Rule 60(b) motion: She argued that her lawsuit was not untimely because of the continuing-violation doctrine and that, if her complaint was untimely, the statute of limitations was equitably tolled. Because these arguments attack the merits of the order dismissing Gray’s complaint, they are not proper grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). *See Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,*411 F.3d 831, 837 (7th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.
#### ENJI LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71954.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 20, 2011.

Maria Christina Flores, Law Office of Maria Flores, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.

Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Enji Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order *182denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Sembiring v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency was within its discretion in denying Li’s motion to reopen on the ground that she failed to rebut the presumption of effective service by regular mail. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); *cf. Sembiring,*499 F.3d at 988-89 (describing evidence sufficient to overcome presumption of effective service). In evaluating this petition for review, we do not consider facts asserted for the first time in Li’s opening brief. *See Sembiring,*499 F.3d at 988.

Li failed to exhaust her contention concerning service of retained counsel. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statement on Form 20-F/A (Commission file number
001-14251) of SAP Akriengesellschaft Systeme, Anwendungen, Products in der
Datenverarbeitung (the "Company") of our report dated February 21, 2000,
contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 1999 and to all references to our Firm included in these
registration statements.



                             Eschborn/Frankfurt/M., June 23, 2000



                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN
                             Wirschaftsprufungesgeselischaft
                             Steuerberatungsgesellschaft mbH



                               Klein                Turowski
                              -------------         -----------
                               Klein                Turowski
                               Wirtschaftsprufer    Wirtschaftsprufer