alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 04-12

IN RE: TIMELINESS OF APPEALS AND BOVE V. SHINSEKI, __ VET.APP. __, NO. 08-1468, 2011

WL 6364587 (PER CURIAM ORDER DEC. 20, 2011). 

Before KASOLD, Chief Judge, and HAGEL, MOORMAN, LANCE, 

DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.

O R D E R

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7264 (investing rule-making authority in the Court) and Rule 2 of

the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) (Court may suspend its Rules), the Court has

determined the need to issue a general order in light of two recent decisions fundamentally and

uniquely affecting the Court's treatment of the 120-day filing period in which to file an appeal at the

Court, as required by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a). First, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Henderson

v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197, 1206 (2011) (Henderson III), that the 120-day filing period is not a

jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal but rather an "important procedural rule." Second, this Court

determined in Bove v. Shinseki, __ Vet.App. __, No. 08-1468, 2011 WL 6364587 (per curiam order

Dec. 20, 2011), that the 120-day filing period is subject to equitable tolling within the parameters

of the precedential decisions on equitable tolling that predated this Court's now-overruled decision

in Henderson v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 217 (2008) (Henderson I) (relying on Bowles v. Russell, 551

U.S. 205 (2007), and holding that the 120-day filing period was jurisdictional and not subject to

equitable tolling), aff'd sub nom., Henderson v. Shinseki, 589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (en banc)

(Henderson II), rev'd, Henderson III.

Subsequent to Henderson I and prior to Bove, a number of appeals were dismissed for

untimely filing and lack of jurisdiction, without consideration of the appellants' equitable tolling

arguments. Mandate has entered in many of those decisions. In the interests of justice, for any such

appellant the Court will consider a motion to recall mandate premised on an argument that the time

to file the Notice of Appeal in such casewarrants equitable tolling under Bove, provided such motion

and argument are filed within 120 days of this order. The appeals affected by this order were all

dismissed by the Court between July 24, 2008, and December 20, 2011.

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that, not later than 120 days after the date of this order, any appellant whose

appeal was dismissed pursuant to Henderson I may move the Court to recall mandate premised on

an argument that the time to file the Notice of Appeal in such case warrants equitable tolling under

Bove. It is further 
ORDERED that, not later than 14 days after the filing of any motion pursuant to this order,

the Secretary may file a response.

DATED: February 7, 2012 PER CURIAM.

[Clerk's Note: Motions to recall mandate should conform to Rule 27 of the Court's Rules

of Practice and Procedure, and should be submitted via: (1) mail, personal delivery, or

other delivery service; (2) fax to (202)501-5848; or (3) email to efiling@uscourts.cavc.gov.]
#### CHILDS, Respondent, v. CRANE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

March 27, 1894.)

Action by E. A. Childs, as receiver, etc., of Kirke B. Crane, against Kirke B. Crane and others.

Argued before DWIGHT, P. X, and LEWIS, HAIGHT, and BRADLEY, JJ.

No opinion. Order appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 32.1



VERTICALNET, INC.

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



I, Nathanael V. Lentz, President and Chief Executive Officer of Verticalnet, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), hereby certify to my knowledge that:



| | (1) |  | The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nathanael V. LentzNathanael V. Lentz President and Chief Executive Officer Date: August 14, 2003




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Verticalnet, Inc. and will be retained by Verticalnet, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
---

---

# Exhibit 15.2

March 31, 2008

Keddem Bioscience Ltd 
Tel-Aviv, Israel

Gentlemen,

We hereby consent the inclusion of
our report of independent registered public accounting firm auditors dated March 13, 2008
relating to the financial statements of Keddem Bio-Science Ltd. as of December 31, 2007
and 2006 and for the years then ended and for the period from August 1, 2004 (date of
commencement of operation) to December 31, 2007, on Form 20-F of Compugen Ltd. as of
December 31, 2007 and for the year then ended.

This consent is not to approve any
inclusion of Keddem Bio-Science Ltd. audited financial statements in Compugen Ltd. Form
20-F.

Sincerely,

Kesselman & Kesselman 
Tel-Aviv, Israel



---

---
#### Dennis W. DEBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leary DAVIS, Dean Elon School of Law; Board of Trustees of Elon University; Elon University; Alan Woodlief, Associate Dean of Admissions, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-1975.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2011.

Decided: May 5, 2011.

Dennis W. Deberry, Appellant Pro Se. Robert T. Numbers, II, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Elizabeth L. Riley, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dennis W. Deberry appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Deberry v. Davis,*No. 1:08-cv-00582-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C. filed Aug. 16, 2010; entered Aug. 17, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, James M. Thomas, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 15, 2005    /s/ James M. Thomas     James M. Thomas  Chief Financial Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6089 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate any time limitation 

for granting equitable innocent spouse relief. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 10, 2010 

Mrs. BACHMANN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate 

any time limitation for granting equitable innocent 

spouse relief. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF TIME LIMITATION FOR EQUI4 TABLE INNOCENT SPOUSE RELIEF. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 6015 of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by insert7 ing ‘‘without regard to any time limitation’’ before the pe8 riod at the end. 

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

10 this section shall apply with respect to any liability for 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6089 IH

1 taxes arising or remaining unpaid on or after the date of 

2 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                1,000

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                422,820
<SECURITIES>                                          340,334
<RECEIVABLES>                                          39,508
<ALLOWANCES>                                            7,454
<INVENTORY>                                            18,362
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      840,625
<PP&E>                                                535,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                         69,414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,783,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 160,797
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  144
<OTHER-SE>                                            794,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,783,880
<SALES>                                                99,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      111,028
<CGS>                                                  74,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          74,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      250,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        4,276
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     19,780
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (238,703)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (238,703)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (238,703)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (1.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (1.59)


</TABLE>
#### Barnard Manuf’g Co., Appellants, v. Quackenbush, Respondent.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

July 1, 1890.)

Ho opinion. Judgment of Herkimer county court, so far as it modifies the verdict and judgment of justice’s court, reversed, and the judgment of justice’s court affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff in the county court, and the appeal of the plaintiff to the county court dismissed, with $10 costs to the defendant (respondent) in the county court; the costs to be offset. The order for retaxation reversed, and the taxation vacated, neither party to have costs in this court on this appeal.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Russell Mitchell, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, *180New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered on June 1, 1983, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Lynch, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
#### Frances G. BROWN, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent. Frances G. Brown, Petitioner, v. Department of the Navy, Respondent.

Nos. 2011-3026, 2011-3122.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 26, 2011.

Scott A. MacGriff, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Frances G. Brown, Pensacola, FL, pro se.

Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Frances G. Brown responds to the court’s letter returning her petition for review from the Merit Systems Protection Board in no. 2011-3122 as untimely and moves to consolidate that case with her petition for review in 2011-3026. Brown also requests help to “get EEOC to remedy [her] EEO claims.”

With regard to Brown’s petition in 2011-3122, the full Board issued its decision declining to review her petition on September 29, 2010. According to Brown, she received that decision on October 4, 2010. This court received her petition for review 63 days after she received the Board’s decision. A petition for review must be received by this court “within 60 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). This filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” *Monzo v. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,*735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984). Because Brown’s petitions for review were received by the court more than 60 days after receipt of the Board’s decision, Brown’s petition for review in 2011-3122 was untimely and correctly returned.

With regard to Brown’s timely petition in 2011-3026, this is a court of limited jurisdiction, which does not include jurisdiction over the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This court is therefore without authority to direct the EEOC to issue a final decision in her appeal and must deny her motion on that basis.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The petition for review in 2011-3122 is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs as to 2011-3122.

(3) Brown’s motion to consolidate 2011-3122 and 2011-3026 is moot.

(4) Brown’s motion with regard to her EEOC claims is denied.

(5) Brown’s brief in 2011-3026 and the $450 filing fee are due within 30 days of the date of filing of this order.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-2082-000]

Take notice that on April 3, 2000, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric) tendered for filing a short-term firm Transmission Service Agreement and a non-firm Transmission Service Agreement between itself and The Detroit Edison Company (DTE). The Transmission Service Agreements allow DTE to receive transmission services under Wisconsin Energy Corporation Operating Companies' FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 1.

Copies of the filing have been served on DTE, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before April 24, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-9592  Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Staff Sergeant JESUS J. MEDELLIN

United States Air Force

ACM S32272

2 July 2015

Sentence adjudged 24 July 2014 by SP CM convened at Joint Base San

Antonio

- Lackland, Texas . Military Judge: Lyndell M. Powell (sitting

alone).

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 6 months

, and reduction to E

- 1

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Lucy H. Carrillo

and Major Thomas A. Smith

.

Appel late Counsel for the United States: Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire

Before

MITCHELL, TELLER, and BENNETT

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred.  

### Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M. J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

 The c ourt notes that the c ourt

- m artial o rder (CMO), dated 5 November 2014

, does not list the convening

author ity ’s deferment of mandatory forfeitures from 7 August 2014 until action. The c ourt orders the promulgation

of a corrected CMO. See Air Force instruction 51

- 201, Administration of Military Justice, ¶ 9.2 9.1.3 and figure

9.12 (6 June 2013).ACM S32272 2 

### Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
#### Barbara Kartzinel, Respondent, v Irwin Kartzinel, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an' order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated March 14, *1461985, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination in an order of the same court, dated December 6, 1984, granting the plaintiff wife certain pendente lite relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in directing the defendant husband to pay $175 per week in temporary child support, all carrying charges on the marital residence, and education costs for his children, and to maintain all existing insurance. Niehoff, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO\
                 13 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 Enviro Voraxial Technology,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alberto DiBella, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 13 U.S.C. ss. 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 results of operations of the
Company.

Date: August 18, 2003

/s/ Alberto DiBella
---------------------------
Alberto DiBella
Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 13.2



Certification pursuant to Section 906 Sarbanes Oxley Act by the Chief

Financial Officer of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A.



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F (the Report) for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Paolo Serra, the Chief Financial Officer of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A..
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: June 30, 2005



By:

/s/ Paolo SerraName:

Paolo SerraChief Financial Officer