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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2921

SCOTT C. SCHIRMACHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-95-1124-AW)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott C. Schirmacher, Appellant Pro Se. William Christopher Edgar,

Jo Ann Peele, BRYAN, CAVE, MCPHEETERS & MCROBERTS, Washington,

D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his complaint filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West

1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Schirmacher v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,

No. CA-95-1124-AW (D. Md. Sept. 18, 1995). 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
October 27, 2023 

Dr. Kenneth Fent, PhD, CIH 

Team Lead, National Firefighter Registry for Cancer 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

RE: National Firefighter Registry for Cancer 

Dear Dr. Fent, 

The Science to the Station, a health & wellness alliance wishes to voice our unwavering support for the 

National Firefighter Registry (NFR) for Cancer. In 2018, Congress passed the Firefighter Cancer Registry 

Act, which directed NIOSH to develop a registry to study cancer among firefighters. Since then, NIOSH has 

worked tirelessly to establish, maintain, and secure a voluntary registry of firefighters to collect history 

and occupational information which can be used to discover the true incidence of cancer among 

firefighters. 

We exist to provide fire departments with the information they need to mitigate risks and the resources 

to build solutions. From toxin exposure to extreme stress, firefighters face a unique set of job risks. We 

offer training, access to cutting-edge research, and articles from field experts and service leaders. Our 

team is dedicated to providing the fire service with relevant scientific findings and facilitate the 

relationship between the fire service community and the scientists who can help them interpret the data 

they need when drafting new policies and establishing best practices. 

Several findings conclude that firefighters have a greater risk of some types of cancer due to work-related 

exposures: including classification by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), recognizing the 

firefighting, the profession as a Group 1 – carcinogenic to humans. Many available studies do not include 

enough female, volunteer, or non-white firefighter specific data to truly know their cancer risk. The NFR 

was established to address these information gaps and provide a scientific basis by which we can 

thoroughly understand and lower risks of cancer among firefighters nationwide. 

We appreciate the work you and your partners at NIOSH are guiding with the National Firefighter Registry. 

The NFR will provide critical information to prevent future cancer exposures and lead to improved local, 

state and federal level policies, effective detection efforts as well as necessary treatment throughout 

America's fire service. We support the NFR and remain committed to bringing science to the stations with 

the support of the most knowledgeable experts in the EMS, Fire, and Rescue field. 

Respectfully, 

Sara A. Jahnke, Ph.D. 

Science Alliance Board President
1900 Reston Metro Plaza 

Suite 600 

Reston, VA 20190 

(703) 691-4620 T 

www.cpse.org 

September 19, 2023 

Dr. Kenneth Fent, PhD, CIH 

Team Lead, National Firefighter Registry for Cancer 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Dear Dr. Fent, 

The Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) Board of Directors voted unanimously during our recent 

meeting to formalize CPSE’s support for the National Firefighter Registry (NFR) for Cancer. 

CPSE’s vision addresses collaboratively working to improve health, wellness, and safety outcomes. The 

mission of the NFR is to generate detailed knowledge about cancer in the fire service through a voluntary 

registry that reflects our nation’s diverse firefighters. We believe the NFR mission aligns with CPSE’s vision 

as well as our values of progressive leadership, outcomes, and continuous improvement. 

We plan on sharing this letter of support with the CPSE community of accredited agencies and credentialed 

professionals to aid in your goal of enrolling more than 200,000 firefighters. 

We commend the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health for establishing a goal of collecting information from previously understudied groups. 

CPSE looks forward to continuing to engage with the NFR as you address these knowledge gaps and provide 

an empirical basis by which to comprehensively understand and reduce risks of cancer among firefighters 

nationwide. 

On behalf of the CPSE, we support the National Firefighter Registry for Cancer and look forward to future 

collaboration. 

Sincerely, 

Preet Bassi, CAE 

Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO




18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,




AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Katy Industries, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Amir Rosenthal, 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, as amended; 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/
      Amir Rosenthal


Amir
      Rosenthal


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      9,
      2006











The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section
      18 of
      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company whether made before
      or
      after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
      such
      filing. 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 the
      Company and will
      be retained by the
      Company and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### DRURY v. DRURY and HOLLAND v. DRURY

No. 3 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 246.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 February 1975.
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 21 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 21 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 2 of 2
PX103-009828-01; 49578/ADC 1B 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

_______________________________________x 

GARY BECKMAN, 

Case No. 07 CV 3356(PKC)(FM) 

 Plaintiff, ECF Case 

-against- NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

 

SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________________x 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the defendant SIEMENS BUILDING 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. appear in this action, and that we are incoming attorneys for the said 

defendant, and we demand that all future papers in this action be served on us at our office, One 

Battery Park Plaza, New York, New York 10004. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 June 8, 2007 Yours etc., 

 BY: __x_________________________________ 

 DOREEN J. CORREIA (DJC/3075) 

 Associated with the Law Offices 

 ROBIN, HARRIS, KING, FODERA 

 & RICHMAN 

 Incoming Attorneys for Defendants 

SIEMANS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, 

INC. 

 One Battery Park Plaza 

 30th Floor 

 New York, New York 10004 

 (212) 487-9701 

TO: PERECMAN & FANNING, PLLC. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 250 West 57th Street-Suite 401 

 New York, New York 10107 

 (212) 977-7033 

Case 1:07-cv-03356-PKC Document 4 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
 

 

 LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA & PARK LLP 

 Outgoing Attorneys for Defendant 

 SIEMANS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

 39 Broadway, 34th Floor 

 New York, New York 10006 

 (212) 404-5777 

Case 1:07-cv-03356-PKC Document 4 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
              -----------------------------------------------------

                   CHASE CREDIT CARD OWNER TRUST SERIES 1999-3

             ------------------------------------------------------



         The undersigned, an Authorized Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, as Administrator pursuant to the Indenture for the Chase
Credit Card Owner Trust Series 1999-3 does hereby certify that:

                  1. The undersigned is an Authorized Officer pursuant to the
                  Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate to the
                  Indenture Trustee.

                  2. This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.9 of
                  the Indenture.

                  3. A review of the activities of the Issuer for the calendar
                  year ended December 31, 2001, and of performance under this
                  Indenture has been made under the supervision of the
                  undersigned.

                  4. To the best of the undersigned knowledge, based on such
                  review, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and
                  covenants in all material respects under this Indenture for
                  the calendar year ended December 31, 2001. No default in the
                  compliance of any such condition or covenant has occurred or
                  is continuing except as set forth in paragraph 5 below.

                  5. The following is a description of each default in the
                  performance of the Issuer's obligations under the provisions
                  of the Indenture known to the undersigned to have been made
                  during such period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature
                  of each such default, (ii) the action taken by the Issuer, if
                  any, to remedy each such default and (iii) the current status
                  of each such default: NONE.


                                                  (signatures on following page)


<PAGE>






         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 25th day of March, 2002.

                                     By CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, National
                                     Association, as Administrator




                                     By:     /s/ Patricia M. Garvey
                                            --------------------------
                                     Name:  Patricia M. Garvey
                                     Title: Vice President
Exhibit 32.1





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 LaBarge, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Craig E. LaBarge, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. |  | 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.





|                         |                     |                                                       
|------------------------ | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|                         |                     |                                                       
|Dated:  February 4, 2005 | /S/CRAIG E. LABARGE
|                         |                     | Craig E. LaBarge
Chief Executive Officer and President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0454 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NEIL LYNN NUNES,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 29 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 2 2023

06/02/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0454
#### STATE v. MOORE and JAMES

No. 32 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 248.

Petition by defendant Moore for writ of certiorari to the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 October 1978. Petition by defendant James for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1978. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal of defendant James for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 October 1978.
#### TAROKH TAEFI v. VERNON R. STEVENS and JOANNE B. STEVENS

No. 148A81

(Filed 3 March 1982)

Vendor and Purchaser § 8— breach of contract to purchase — measure of damages —pertinent time

In an action for breach of a contract to purchase real estate, the vendor is entitled to recover items of damages which were within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered rather than at the time of the breach.

ON defendants’ petition for discretionary review, pursuant to G.S. § 7A-31, of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 53 N.C. App. 579, 281 S.E. 2d 435 (1981), reversing the action of the trial judge in setting aside a verdict for the plaintiff and entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants at the 7 July 1980 Session of Superior Court, MECKLENBURG County.

*Perry, Patrick, Farmer & Michaux, P.A., by Roy H. Michaux, Jr., Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee.*

*Richard A. Cohan, Attorney for Defendant-Appellants.*

*292PER CURIAM.

The facts are adequately stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Defendants contend that the Court of Appeals has incorrectly stated the rule for damages in a breach of contract for the sale of real estate. We do not agree. We have carefully reviewed the opinion of that court and the briefs and authorities relating to defendants’ contentions. We conclude that the result reached by the Court of Appeals, its reasoning, and the legal principles enunciated by it are correct and adopt that opinion as our own with a single minor modification. After correctly quoting the rule stated in 77 Am. Jur. 2d *Vendor and Purchaser*§ 489 (1975) to the effect, in pertinent part, that the compensation to which the vendor is entitled is “limited to such damages as may reasonably be supposed to have been within the contemplation of the parties *when they made the contract .*. .” (emphasis added), the writer of the opinion, in subsequently stating that court’s belief that the jury could find that certain items of damages could have been within the contemplation of the parties at the pertinent time, used the words *“at the time of the breach of the contract.”*(emphasis added). We believe this was obviously inadvertent and that the writer intended the proper time of determination to be when the contract to purchase was entered into.

Except as herein modified, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00259- CR Ex parte Rhonda L ee G lover
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 30415 61, H ONO RAB LE MICH AEL LYNCH , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N At a hea ring i n t h e dis trict court, a ppellant and he r re tained counse l stated that she did not desire to pursue this appe al. SeeTex. R. App. P . 38.8(b)( 2). The a ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Dismissed Filed: Oc tober 18, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Case 1:07-cv-03372-VM Document 8 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03372-VM Document 8 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03372-VM Document 8 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### Minogue, Appellant, *v.*Ashland Borough.

*Justice of the peace*— Trespass—Appeals—Acts *of March*20, 1810, 5 *Sm. L.*161, *and March*22, 1814, 6 *Sm. L.*182.

An appeal does not lie from the judgment of the court of common pleas reversing the judgment of a justice of the peace in an action of trespass. •

Argued Dec. 8, 1904.

Appeal, No. 212, Oct. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Schuylkill Co., reversing judgment of a justice of the peace in case of James F. Minogue v. Ashland Borough.

Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Or-lad y, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Certiorari to justice of the peace in an action of- trespass.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

*507March 14, 1905 :

*Error assigned*was in reversing the judgment of the justice of the peace.

*James F.*Minogue, with him *W. Cr. Treibly,*for appellant.

*Q. 0.*Burkert, for appellee.

Per Curiam,

Section 4 of the act of March 22, 1814, 6 Sm. L. 182, which conferred upon justices of the peace jurisdiction in actions of trespass and trover provided that the “ process, return thereof, notices, awards, judgments, and appeals, and the proceedings of justices, constables, referees, and courts, and every proceeding necessary to carry this act into effect, which is not herein specifically provided for, shall be made and done, under and according to the provisions and regulations in similar cases, contained in the Act ” of March 20, 1810, 5 Sm. L. 161. In Clark v. McKisson, 6 S. & R. 87, Chief Justice Gibson said, that “ the provision relative to the courts is satisfied by, and must be understood to refer to, causes which come into the court by appeal or on certiorari, and not to those that never were commenced or prosecuted under the act at all.” Therefore, the section, so far as it relates to actions of trespass and trover, is to be read as if there were incorporated in it the provisions of the act of 1810, namely, that the judgment of the court of common pleas shall be final in all proceedings removed on certiorari by said court and that no writ of error shall issue thereon. The law in this particular was not changed by the act of 1889 giving the name appeal to all appellate proceedings, nor by the act of 1895 establishing the Superior Court and defining its jurisdiction : Phoenix Iron Works Co. v. Mullen, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 547 and cases there cited. As early as 1815 it was decided that a writ of error did not lie to the judgment of the common pleas reversing the judgment of a justice of the peace in an action of trespass : Cozens v. Dewees, 2 S. & R. 112. This is precisely the kind of a case we have before us, and, therefore, the decision is directly in point. It follows that the motion to quash the appeal ■ must prevail.

Appeal quashed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1603 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1603

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the standard 
  charitable mileage rate for delivery of meals to elderly, disabled, 
                    frail, and at-risk individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2019

 Mr. King (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the standard 
  charitable mileage rate for delivery of meals to elderly, disabled, 
                    frail, and at-risk individuals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Delivering Elderly Lunches and 
Increasing Volunteer Engagement and Reimbursements Act of 2019'' or the 
``DELIVER Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN STANDARD MILEAGE RATE FOR DELIVERY OF MEALS TO 
              ELDERLY, DISABLED, FRAIL, AND AT-RISK INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (i) of section 170 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: 
``In the case of use of such an automobile for the delivery of meals to 
homebound individuals who are elderly, disabled, frail, or at risk, the 
mileage rate used shall be the standard business mileage rate specified 
by the Internal Revenue Service for the taxable year in which such 
miles are driven.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to miles driven on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### IN RE McCOY

No. 199 P.C.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 52.

Petition by respondents for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1979.
#### STATE v. MITCHELL

No. 9 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 313.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 February 1976.