alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

BUFFALO SHOOK COMPANY, INC., 

 WOOD PRODUCTS OF VIRGINIA GROUP 

 SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION AND 

 TRIGON ADMINISTRATORS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2593-97-2 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 31, 1998 

JAMES A. PRYOR, SR. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (R. Temple Mayo; Taylor & Walker, on brief), 

for appellants. 

 (Robert L. Flax, on brief), for appellee. 

 Buffalo Shook Co., Inc. and its insurers (hereinafter 

referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission ("commission") erred in finding that employer failed 

to prove that James A. Pryor, Sr. ("claimant") unjustifiably 

refused employer's offer of selective employment. Upon reviewing 

the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this 

appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

commission's decision. See Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "To 

support a finding of refusal of selective employment 'the record 

must disclose (1) a bona fide job offer suitable to the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

employee's capacity; (2) [a job offer that was] procured for the 

employee by the employer; and (3) an unjustified refusal by the 

employee to accept the job.'" James v. Capitol Steel Constr. 

Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 489 (1989) (quoting 

Ellerson v. W.O. Grubb Steel Erection Co., 1 Va. App. 97, 98, 335 

S.E.2d 379, 380 (1985)). 

 In holding that employer's evidence failed to prove that its 

offer of selective employment was suitable to claimant's residual 

capacity, the commission found as follows: 

 Dr. [Douglas A.] Wayne specifically 

recommended against bending. The claimant 

credibly testified that the small wood parts 

processor job required bending, and Mr. [G. 

Nelson] Wilson [, employer's production 

manager,] conceded that some bending is 

required to perform the job. As the pile of 

wood on the pallet got lower, the claimant 

had to bend to pick up the next piece of 

wood. Thus, the claimant did not 

unjustifiably refuse a light duty job that 

was within his physical capabilities. 

Moreover, the claimant demonstrated a good 

faith effort to perform the job but his pain 

worsened. The best proof of whether or not a 

job is within the employee's capabilities is 

a good faith effort to perform the job. Dr. 

Wayne has observed that the claimant is not a 

symptom magnifier. 

 The commission's findings are amply supported by the record. 

 Based upon Dr. Wayne's restriction against bending, the 

testimony of claimant and Wilson, which established that the job 

required bending, and claimant's unsuccessful good faith attempt 

to perform the light duty job, we cannot say as a matter of law 

that 
 3 

employer proved that claimant unjustifiably refused selective 

employment. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby certify that:





I have reviewed the Annual Report on
Form 10-K;





to the best of my knowledge, this
Annual Report on Form 10-K (i) fully complies with the requirements of section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
78o(d); and (ii) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
Tengasco, Inc. and its subsidiaries during the period covered by this
Report.





Dated:
March 31 , 2010








s/Michael J.
Rugen


Michael J. Rugen,


Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 15.01

May 10, 2004

To the Board of Directors and Stockholder of
Hartford Life, Inc.
Hartford, Connecticut

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Hartford Life, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") for the
periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in our report dated May 3,
2004; 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 the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended March 31,
2004, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-28805 and
333-28807 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-21865 and 333-56283 on
Form S-3.

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 or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

Hartford, Connecticut

                                       41
#### C & M 345 North Main Street, LLC, Appellant, v Nikko Construction Corp. et al, Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 241]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated April 11, 2011, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Nikko Construction Corp. and SDM Construction II, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the separate motions of the defendants Nikko Construction Corp. and SDM Construction II, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them are denied, and the complaint is reinstated as against all of the defendants.

The Supreme Court granted the separate motions of the defendants Nikko Construction Corp. (hereinafter Nikko) and SDM Construction II, LLC (hereinafter SDM), pursuant to *795CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with provisions in its construction contract with Nikko, which required that claims arising out of the contract be submitted first to mediation and then, if mediation proved unsuccessful, to arbitration, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. However, an agreement to submit a dispute to mediation and arbitration is not a defense to an action, and, thus, may not be the basis for a motion to dismiss a complaint based on documentary evidence *(see Allied Bldg. Inspectors Intl. Union of Operating Engrs., Local Union No. 211, AFL-CIO v Office of Labor Relations of City of N.Y.,*45 NY2d 735, 738 [1978]; *Carbon Capital Mgt., LLC v American Express Co.,*88 AD3d 933, 940 [2011]; *Curran v Estate of Curran,*87 AD3d 607 [2011]; *Nachman v Jenelo Corp.,*25 AD3d 593 [2006]). Moreover, SDM and the defendants Tri Equities Construction Corp., and EFCO Corporation were not parties to the plaintiffs contract with Nikko, and, thus, there is no agreement between the plaintiff and these parties to submit any disputes arising under the Nikko contract to mediation and arbitration *(see TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp.,*92 NY2d 335 [1998]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Thomas BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-14768

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 29, 2011.

*369Tiffany Hope Eggers, Robert G. Davies, Thomas F. Kirwin, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Terry Flynn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Chet Kaufman, Robert G. Davies, Randolph P. Murrell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Thomas S. Keith, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Thomas Bryant appeals the 78-month sentence he received after pleading guilty to two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His sentence reflects a 27-month upward departure, imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a). On appeal, Bryant argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We review sentences for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of discretion-standard. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The burden of demonstrating unreasonableness lies with the party challenging the sentence. *United States v. Talley,*431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam). We find a sentence substantively unreasonable if, after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors. *See United States v. Irey,*612 F.3d 1160, 1189-90 (11th Cir.2010) (en banc), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1813, 179 L.Ed.2d 772 (2011). That a sentence falls below a statutory maximum penalty is an indicator of reasonableness. *See United States v. Gonzalez,*550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (noting that the defendant’s sentence was well below the statutory maximum when upholding the sentence as substantively reasonable). Extraordinary circumstances are not required to justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 47, 128 S.Ct. 586.

Bryant’s 78-month sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court considered his criminal history, which included thirty-one criminal convictions. His criminal-history category did not account for six occasions on which Bryant was convicted for serious offenses. Additionally, Bryant used marijuana while on pretrial release, and then attempted to hide that fact by providing fake urine for a drug test. In light of Bryant’s history, the district court found that the public should be protected from Bryant’s likelihood of future criminal conduct. The district court also considered the § 3553(a) factors after hearing arguments from both parties. Finally, Bryant’s sentence is below the statutory maximum of ten years. Under these facts and circumstances, Bryant has failed to demonstrate that the district court committed a clear error of judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



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 of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry
J. White, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of
the Company. Dated: August 12, 2004
    /s/ HARRY J. WHITE, JR.Harry J. White, Jr. 32
```
**                    EXHIBIT 32.1**
```

```
 
```

```
 
```

```
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
```

```
**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
```

```
**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
```

```
 
```

```
                    I, Tommy Allen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of eLinear, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year period ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such  Form 10-KSB fairly  presents in all material respects the financial condition and results  of  operations of eLinear, Inc.
```

```
 
```

```
Date:  July 11, 2006
```

```
 
```

```
 
```

```
 
```

```
By:  _/s/  Tommy Allen__________
```

```
        Tommy Allen
```

```
        Chief Executive Officer
```
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Genetics Research: Columbia, MO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Columbia, Missouri Plant Genetics Research People & Locations







Jeremy  Mullis
                        Plant Genetics Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (573) 882-0617
                        
                        
                        Fax: (573) 884-7850(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00788

- CV

Ji HYUN

, Appellant

v.

DNOW L.P. , d/b/a DistributionNOW and Marley Wiles,

Appellees

From the 57th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021

- CI

- 11226

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. We tax costs of court against the party that incurred them.

SIGNED March 20, 2024.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice
Exhibit
32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.

The
undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial
Corporation as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013.

Date: May 5, 2014

By:

/s/ Wayne-Kent A. Bradshaw Wayne-Kent A. Bradshaw
Chief Executive Officer
Broadway Financial Corporation


---
#### Eko SETYAWAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71317.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 22, 2011.

Eko Setyawan, Rowland Height, CA, pro se.

Marshall Tamor Golding, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the Dis*954trict 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 **

Eko Setyawan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal conclusions. *Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Setyawan does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his,application for asylum was untimely. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Setyawan does not contend he suffered past persecution, but fears future persecution because unknown assailants sexually assaulted his daughter and burned down his brother’s church. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that he does not have a clear probability of future persecution because he did not establish he faces any particular threat. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2009) (a withholding of removal applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution on one of the specified grounds). We reject Setyawan’s contention that the BIA erred in not referencing *Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.2004), because the BIA analyzed his claim under a disfavored group analysis. Accordingly, Setya-wan’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claim that the IJ applies different standards of proof to different cases in a way favorable to the government because petitioner did not raise this claim to the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

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.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Renewable Product Technology Research: Peoria, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NCAUR homepageSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Peoria, Illinois National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research Renewable Product Technology Research People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People

People and Locations at National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research   [Expand All] [Collapse All]
  (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated August 6, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2084 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-257952) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


August 6, 2021