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

# Troy Carter

## U.S. Representative and CSSBMB Commissioner

Congressman Troy A. Carter, Sr. is an elected United States House of Representatives member from Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District. 

Congressman Carter currently serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, one of the largest committees in Congress that has jurisdiction over all modes of transportation and infrastructure. He also serves on the powerful committee for Homeland Security of the United States, where he serves as Ranking Member over Emergency Management and Technology. Congressman Carter previously served on the Small Business Committee, which has direct oversight and consideration over all matters affecting America's backbone, small businesses. 

Congressman Troy A. Carter earned a bachelor’s degree from Xavier University and a master's degree from Holy Cross University. He has also studied at Harvard's JFK School of Government and Carnegie Mellon's School of Urban and Public Affairs. In May 2023, Congressman Carter was awarded a Doctorate of Humane Letters, honoris causa, from Xavier University. 

Congressman Carter began his professional career as a senior aide to Mayor Sidney Barthelemy. In 1991, Congressman Carter became the first African American to be elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives from the 102nd District in Algiers, where he served as the youngest-ever floor leader representing the City of New Orleans. 

In 1994, Congressman Carter was elected to the New Orleans City Council, representing District C, including Algiers, and the historic French Quarter, again becoming the first African American elected. After a hiatus from public office, Congressman Carter was elected to the State Senate for Louisiana's 7th District, where he served as Senate Minority Leader. During his time as a Legislator, Congressman Carter authored and co-authored hundreds of bills that are now law. 

Congressman Carter is a staunch advocate for criminal justice reform, women’s health care, civil rights, environmental justice reform, mental health, and equality for all! Congressman Carter is a proud husband to wife, Brigadier General Ana Carter of the United States Army, and father to sons Troy Jr. and Joshua. They live on the Westbank of New Orleans, where Congressman Carter was born and raised. Congressman Troy A. Carter, Sr. has enjoyed a series of historic 1sts including: 
                      - 1st African American elected to the Louisiana State House from District 102
                      - 1st African American elected to the New Orleans City Council representing District C
                      - 1st African American elected to the Louisiana State Senate from District 7
                      - 1st Congressman elected to Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District from the Westbank of New Orleans (Algiers)
                      - 1st Congressman whose spouse is a General in the United States Army

-  Our Mission 
-  Commissioners 
-  Offices and Staff 
-  Careers 
-  Acquisition Opportunities 
-  Rankin Memorial Library 
-  FAQs
#### In the Matter of Donna Whittaker, Appellant, v Wil*963lard Bicknell, Respondent.

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and matter remitted to Herkimer County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner’s testimony in this filiation proceeding that the child was born after a "normal length of pregnancy or period of gestation”, that she was neither early nor late with her pregnancy and that her "periods” were regular within the year before she became pregnant established a prima facie case and Family Court erred in dismissing the petition at the close of her proof. The only inference that can be drawn from this testimony is that the pregnancy was within the normal range and that the baby was full term. Although no proof was submitted as to the specific date of impregnation or the date of petitioner’s last menstrual period, the record reflects that the parties engaged in intercourse during October and November 1981 which, in this case, is well within the range of the normal period of gestation *(see, Matter of Erie County Commr. of Social Servs. v Boyd,*74 AD2d 728). Any inconsistency in the testimony must be resolved by the court at the conclusion of the whole case. Whether the court will dismiss the petition is a matter for it to determine after a full hearing. (Appeal from order of Herkimer County Family Court, Blaugrund, J. — paternity.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
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 The Thaxton Group, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allan F. Ross, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Allan F. RossAllan F. Ross Chief Financial Officer August 11, 2003




This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Margarita Rivera, Respondent, v Katte Anilesh, D.D.S., et al., Defendants, and Indu Anilesh, D.D.S., Appellant.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided March 29, 2007

Motion by City of New York et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted. Three copies of the brief may be served and an original and 24 copies filed within seven days.
EDEN RESERVOIRLatitude: 42.217Longitude: -109.371Elevation: 6703

EDEN RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Pocket Creek Site Page...



Pocket Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Larsen Creek Site Page...



Larsen Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Big Sandy Opening Site Page...



Big Sandy Opening

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hobbs Park Site Page...



Hobbs Park
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                     5
       
<S>                                           <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<CASH>                                          1,558,106
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                       194,222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,829,677
<PP&E>                                            634,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                    310,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,434,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             408,998
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                        9,545,858
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                     1,374,989
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,290,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,434,400
<SALES>                                           155,010
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  305,010
<CGS>                                              38,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      38,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 46,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,097,941)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,097,941)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,097,941)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.92)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                       EXHIBIT 1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

Board of Directors
Meridian Gold Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-11337) of Meridian Gold Inc. of our report dated January 31,
2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Meridian Gold Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, cash flows, and changes in shareholders' equity for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which
report appears in the 2002 annual report to shareholders of Meridian Gold Inc.
included in the annual report on Form 40-F of Meridian Gold Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2002, and further consent to the use of such report in such
annual report on Form 40-F.


                                        /s/ KPMG LLP
                                        KPMG LLP


Denver, Colorado
April 2, 2003
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Transcripts/Audio CDs

Transcript Redaction Policy

Request for Audio CD of Proceeding

Request for Certified Transcript of Court Proceeding

Transcript and Index Form, Content, and Style Requirements

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1045
MICHAEL L. DONNER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS G. HODGES, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 97-1102
MICHAEL L. DONNER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS G. HODGES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-1439-A) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.23 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Donner, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. D. Stan Barnhill, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Michael L. Donner, Sr., appeals a district court order dismissing his amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and a subsequent order denying hismotion to amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, in No. 97-1045, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Donner v. Hodges , No. CA-96-1439-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 13 and Dec. 31, 1996). In light of our decision in No. 97-1045, we affirm Thomas C. Hodges' cross-appeal of the district court's order denying Hodges' motion to dismiss on other grounds and granting Donner's motion to amend his complaint. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.4 AFFIRMED
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40614 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE JAIME RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:99-CR-81-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose

Jaime Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Rodriguez received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but did

not file a response.

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

one possible nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Rodriguez’s offense

level and sentence were increased for his having been deported

after a prior aggravated-felony conviction which was not alleged
in his indictment. An argument that the prior conviction should

have been alleged in the indictment is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, the

continuing validity of Almendarez-Torres has been cast into doubt

by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). 

See id. at 2362 (finding it “arguable that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided”). Counsel could have raised the issue on

appeal in order to preserve it for Supreme Court review in light

of Apprendi.

Because our independent review of the record has revealed

this possible nonfrivolous issue for appeal, we deny counsel’s

motion to withdraw. By our denying the motion to withdraw,

Rodriguez preserves the Almendarez-Torres issue for further

review. We pretermit further briefing, however, and AFFIRM the

judgment of the district court because Apprendi did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See id., 120 S. Ct. at 2362; see also United

States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000)(noting that

the Supreme Court in Apprendi expressly declined to overrule

Almendarez-Torres), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). This

court must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres “unless

and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” 

Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation and citation

omitted). 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

DENIED, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
10.53


 





 


June
21, 2019


 


Personal
and Confidential


 


Douglas
Plassche


 


Dear
Doug,


 


This
letter agreement (the “Agreement”) shall confirm our understanding as to the terms of your continuing employment with
Elite Laboratories, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).


 


In
recognition of the value Elite places on your past and continued service to the Company, we are pleased to offer you an
incentive to continue to remain employed with the Company and to provide for the continuity of management and the success of
the Company’s operations during a period of substantial change by ensuring your commitment to continue to serve diligently in
your present position for an additional two year period starting June 30, 2019. In consideration of the foregoing Elite will
pay you $30,000 for relocation expenses within two weeks of executing this letter agreement. In addition, at any time after
June 30, 2021 and provided that you remain continuously employed with the Company through June 30, 2021, you will be entitled
to a lump sum retention payment of $253,552, less applicable withholding taxes, regardless of whether you remain with the
Company or leave the Company any time after June 30, 2021. Further in the two-year period up to June 30, 2021 your salary of
$253,552 per year and bonus of $75,000 is guaranteed. These benefits will replace what is stated in your offer
letter.


 


(Signature
Page follows)


 


165 Ludlow
Avenue. Northvale, NJ 07647, Ph: (201)750-2646, Fax: (201)750-2755 www.elitepharma.com




 







     


     


    


 


If
you find the foregoing arrangement acceptable and believe that the foregoing accurately summarizes our understanding, please kindly
so indicate by executing and dating the attached copy of this Agreement in the space provided and returning a copy to me.


	


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	 	Elite Laboratories,
    Inc
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ 
    Nasrat Hakim
	 	 	Nasrat Hakim
	 	 	President and CEO


 


	ACCEPTED & AGREED	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/Douglas
    Plassche	 
	 	Douglas
    Plassche	 


 


 


165 Ludlow
Avenue. Northvale, NJ 07647, Ph: (201)750-2646, Fax: (201)750-2755 www.elitepharma.com
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Attorney Information

Admission to the Bar of the Court

Attorney Discipline Opinions

Attorney Guide for Filing Complaints and Petitions in CM/ECF

CM/ECF Accounts

CM/ECF Filing Tips

Fee Schedule

Guidelines for Cases Involving Classified Information

Guidelines for Cases Involving Highly Sensitive Documents

How to File a Bill of Costs

How to File a Complaint (please click here for information on filing a Vaccine Petition)

Requesting a Certificate of Good Standing

Requesting a Duplicate Certificate of Admission

Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC)

United States Court of Federal Claims General Filing Tips

USCFC Bar Association

Vaccine Case Processing Filing Tips

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
#### Cathleen E. GOLDEN, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2009-7029.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2011.

John F. Cameron Jr., Montgomery, AL, for Claimant-Appellant.

Allison Kidd-Miller, Elizabeth A. Holt, Department of Justice, Y. Ken Lee, David R. McLenachen, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, for RespondentAppellee.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

ON MOTION

RADER, Chief Judge.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in her case. That court dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the 120-day appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The appellant sought this court’s review.

This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States *955Supreme Court’s review of our decision in *Henderson v. Shinseki,*589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc) (affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is not subject to equitable tolling). In *Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and concluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that the appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional, we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
# C_2021199EN.01001201.xml

| 27.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M. 9854 — KHS/Ferrum)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 199/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | KHS GmbH (Germany), controlled by Salzgitter AG (Germany), |
| --- | --- |

—

KHS GmbH (Germany), controlled by Salzgitter AG (Germany),

| — | Ferrum AG (Switzerland), |
| --- | --- |

—

Ferrum AG (Switzerland),

| — | Ferrum Packaging AG (Switzerland), controlled by Ferrum AG |
| --- | --- |

—

Ferrum Packaging AG (Switzerland), controlled by Ferrum AG

KHS GmbH and Ferrum AG acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control Ferrum Packaging AG.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for KHS GmbH: supply of machines for the filling of glass and PET bottles, cans, pouches and kegs for the beverage, food and non-food industry; for the beverage industry also supply of complete filling and packaging lines in addition to a filling machine |
| --- | --- |

—

for KHS GmbH: supply of machines for the filling of glass and PET bottles, cans, pouches and kegs for the beverage, food and non-food industry; for the beverage industry also supply of complete filling and packaging lines in addition to a filling machine

| — | for Ferrum Packaging AG: supply of can seaming machines for the food and beverage packaging industry |
| --- | --- |

—

for Ferrum Packaging AG: supply of can seaming machines for the food and beverage packaging industry

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M. 9854 — KHS/Ferrum

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email:COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
----

|  | (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. |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                 |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Bart C. Shuldman                                 |   |
| Bart C. ShuldmanChairman and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                                           |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Steven A. DeMartino                                                        |   |
| Steven A. DeMartinoPresident, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |   |