alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5264]



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


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Information Collection Under OMB Review: Supplemental Information 
for Change of Program or Reenrollment After Unsatisfactory Attendance, 
Conduct or Progress, VA Form 22-8873

agency: Department of Veterans Affairs.

action: Notice.

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

    The Department of Veterans Affairs has submitted to OMB the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This 
document lists the following information: (1) The title of the 
information collection, and the Department form number(s), if 
applicable; (2) a description of the need and its use; (3) who will be 
required or asked to respond; (4) an estimate of the total annual 
reporting hours, and recordkeeping burden, if applicable; (5) the 
estimated average burden hours per respondent; (6) the frequency of 
response; and (7) an estimated number of respondents.

addresses: Copies of the proposed information collection and supporting 
documents may be obtained from Trish Fineran, Veterans Benefits 
Administration (20M30), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-6886.
    Comments and questions about the items on the list should be 
directed to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Joseph Lackey, NEOB, Room 3002, 
Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316. Do not send requests for benefits 
to this address.

dates: Comments on the information collection should be directed to the 
OMB Desk Officer on or before April 3, 1995.

    Dated: February 21, 1995.

    By direction of the Secretary.
 Ronald C. Taylor,
Management Analyst.

Extension

    1. Supplemental Information for Change of Program or Reenrollment 
After Unsatisfactory Attendance, Conduct or Progress, VA Form 22-8873.
    2. The information is used to determine suitability of a training 
program or evaluate the reasons regarding a veteran's unsatisfactory 
progress or conduct.
    3. Individuals or households.
    4. 11,000 hours.
    5. 30 minutes.
    6. On occasion.
    7. 22,000 respondents.

[FR Doc. 95-5264 Filed 3-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

Lincare Holdings Inc.: 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-148907) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-145557, 333-116599, 333-98903, 333-74672, 333-78719, 333-71159, 333-46969, 333-39689 and 333-13275) of LincareHoldings Inc. of our reports dated February 25, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Lincare Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the related financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Lincare Holdings Inc. 

As discussed in Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its method of quantifying errors in 2006. 

As discussed in Note 1(m) to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2007, the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,*Accounting for Uncertainty inIncome Taxes.*

As discussed in Note 1(v) to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2008, theCompany adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 159, *The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities – Including an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 115*. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Tampa, Florida 

February 25, 2009 

Certified PublicAccountants
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          65,175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,374
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,690
<PP&E>                                          10,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,550
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,720
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,685
<CGS>                                           74,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,691)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,574
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,234
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,340
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,340
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7481

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ABDALLAH HUSSEIN FAKIH, a/k/a Abdullah Fakih,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00021-RLV-DCK-4; 5:11-cv00087-RLV)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 24, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdallah Hussein Fakih, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Abdallah Hussein Fakih seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2011) motion and treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion 

as a successive § 2255 motion, and denying it on that basis. 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)(2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th

Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Fakih has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 
3

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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE HOLT GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS
OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,444
<SECURITIES>                                    29,661
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,970
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,617
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,532
<PP&E>                                         270,806
<DEPRECIATION>                                (82,584)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 439,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          150,201
<BONDS>                                         51,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   439,026
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               276,393
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  245,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,454
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,454
<EPS-BASIC>                                   134.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   134.54


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of DirectorsLincare Holdings Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-148907 and 333-108207) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-145557,
333-116599, 333-98903, 333-74672, 333-78719, 333-71159, 333-46969, 333-39689 and
333-13275) of Lincare Holdings Inc. of our reports dated February 27, 2008, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Lincare Holdings Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the related
financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the
December 31, 2007 annual report on Form  10-K of Lincare Holdings
Inc.

As
discussed in Notes 1(t) and 11 to the consolidated financial statements,
effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 123R,Share-Based Payment,and as discussed in Note 9 to the
consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its method of quantifying
errors in 2006.

As
discussed in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements, effective January
1, 2007, the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation
No. 48,Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Tampa, FloridaFebruary 27, 2008Certified
Public Accountants

---
<PAGE>
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 20-F)
of MERANT plc of our report dated July 23, 2001, except Note 17, as to which the
date is September 20, 2001, included in the 2001 Annual Report to Shareholders
of MERANT plc in respect of the U.S. format financial statements.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-24867, 333-45701, 333-65027 and 333-92819) pertaining to the
employee share plans named on the facing sheets thereof of our report dated July
23, 2001, except Note 17, as to which the date is September 20, 2001, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of MERANT plc incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended April 30, 2001 in
respect of the U.S. format financial statements.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of MERANT plc listed
in Item 19 (a) 2. This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia
November 14, 2001
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The undersigned hereby consents to the inclusion as an exhibit to this Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 1, 1997 of our report dated
February 28, 1997, on our audits of the statements of net assets available for
benefits of the United Retail Group Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related statements of changes in net assets
available for benefits for each of the three years in the period ended December
31, 1996.

The undersigned also hereby consents to the incorporation of such report by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of United Retail Group, Inc.
(The "Company") with respect to the Plan and its investment in shares of common
stock of the Company.



                                                  /s/ Ary, Earman, and Roepcke

                                                  ARY, EARMAN AND ROEPCKE


Columbus, Ohio
April 8, 1997
#### R. R. RAGAN v. R. A. DOUGHTON, Commissioner, et al.

(Filed 10 November, 1926.)

Taxation — Payment of Tax — Actions—Injunction.

The plaintiff’s remedy for contesting the validity of the ruling of the State Commissioner of Revenue in erroneously classifying him as one buying and selling real estate under section 30, ch. 101, Revenue Act of 1925, is by paying the tax under protest and suing to recover it. C. S., *5017979, there being no question as to the legality of the tax thus imposed, and there being no element of an equitable nature involved, the remedy by injunction is unavailable. O. S., 858.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Finley, J.,*at Chambers, 21 June, 1926, from G-uileoed.

Civil action to restrain the collection of a license tax levied under section 30, eh. 101, Eevenue Act, Schedule B, Public Laws 1925, it being alleged that plaintiff is not engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate for profit, for which he has been taxed.

A temporary restraining order was issued in the cause, which was later dissolved, and, from the court’s refusal tb continue the injunction to the hearing, the plaintiff appeals.

*jD. H. Parsons for plaintiff.*

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Allen for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The temporary restraining order was dissolved upon the ground and finding that the tax in question is not illegal or invalid, or levied or assessed for an illegal or unauthorized purpose, and that, therefore, the plaintiff’s right to contest its collection, either in whole or in part, is not by seeking an injunction (C. S., 858), but by paying the tax under protest and then suing to recover it back, observing, of course, the requirements of the statute with respect to time, notice, etc. C. S., 7979. We find no error in this ruling. *R. R. v. Comrs.,*188 N. C., 265.

We think a fair interpretation of the pertinent decisions, construing the statutes applicable, would be to say that where the legality of the tax, or the legality of the assessment, or the purpose for which the tax is assessed or authorized, is not assailed, but the taxpayer merely contends, contrary to the ruling of the Revenue Department, that he does not come within the class taxed, in the absence of circumstances sufficient to invoke the aid of a court of equity, his remedy for determining this controverted question of fact, which challenges only the administration of the law, is not by seeking to enjoin the collection of the tax, but by paying it under protest and then suing to recover it back. *Sherrod v. Dawson,*154 N. C., p. 528; *Purnell v. Page,*133 N. C., 129; *Armstrong v. Stedman,*130 N. C., 217; *Ins. Co. v. Stedman, ibid.,*221; *Schaul v. Charlotte,*118 N. C., 733; *Range Co. v. Carver, ibid.,*328; *Mace v. Comrs.,*99 N. C., 65; *R. R. v. Lewis, Ibid.,*62.

The ruling of his Honor on the facts appearing of record must be upheld.

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00289-CR

WAYLAND EARL BAILEY, JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CR11-0741

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

ON PERMANENT ABATEMENT OF APPEAL

----------

We have considered Appellant Wayland Earl Bailey, Jr.’s “Motion to 

Permanently Abate” this appeal. Attached to the motion is the certificate of death

showing that Bailey died on November 24, 2015.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
2

The death of an appellant during the pendency of an appeal deprives this 

court of jurisdiction. Molitor v. State, 862 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. Crim. App.

1993). Under these circumstances, the appropriate disposition is the permanent 

abatement of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(2).

No decision of this court having been delivered prior to the receipt of this 

motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. It is therefore ordered, 

adjudged, and decreed that the appeal is permanently abated.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 11, 2016
EXHIBIT 10.3                  

GOLDEN SPIRIT ENTERPRISES LTD.

(the “Company”)

CONSENT TO ACT AS OFFICER

I hereby consent to act as a Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and acknowledge that I am not disqualified to become or to act as a director under Section 141 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

I hereby confirm that:

1.

I am not under the age of 18 years;

2.

I have not been found by a court, in the United States of America or elsewhere, to be incapable of managing my own affairs;

3.

I am not an undischarged bankrupt; and

4.

I have not been convicted in or out of Delaware of an offence in connection with the promotion, formation or management of a corporation or unincorporated business, or of an offence involving fraud.

In addition, the undersigned hereby consents to the holding of any meeting of the directors or of a committee of the directors of the Company by means of such telephonic, electronic or other communication facility, as permit all persons participating in the subject meetings to communicate adequately with each other.




This consent shall continue in effect from year to year so long as the undersigned is re-elected to the board of directors, provided that in the event that the undersigned revokes this consent or resigns from the board of directors, this consent shall cease to have effect from the date of receipt in writing by the Company of such revocation or resignation, as the case may be, or, if the latter, the effective date of such resignation.

DIRECTORS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT LIABILITIES. THE PERSON SIGNING THIS CONSENT SHOULD OBTAIN INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE.

		
	Dated

	June 24, 2011


	Print name

	Sharon Deutsch 


	Address

	 

35 South Ocean Avenue

Patchogue, New York

11772


	Signature

	/s/: Sharon Deutsch
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2496-2497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-577]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 94-ASW-2]


Alteration of Jet Routes; Louisiana

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final rule 
published on December 9, 1994. In the airspace designation of Jet Route 
J-37 the Hobby 084 deg. radial was in error. This correction changes 
the ``Hobby 084 deg.'' radial to read the ``Hobby 090 deg.'' radial.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 2, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Norman W. Thomas, Airspace and 
Obstruction Evaluation Branch (ATP- [[Page 2497]] 240), Airspace-Rules 
and Aeronautical Information Division, Air Traffic Rules and Procedures 
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-9250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 9, 1994, the FAA published a 
final rule that revised the description of Jet Route J-37 in the State 
of Louisiana. In the airspace designation of Jet Route J-37 the Hobby 
084 deg. radial was in error. This correction changes the ``Hobby 
O84 deg.'' radial to read the ``Hobby 090 deg.'' radial.

Correction of Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
airspace designation for Jet Route J-37 published in the Federal 
Register on December 9, 1994 (59 FR 63718; Federal Register Document 
94-30225, Column 3) is corrected as follows:

J-37  [Corrected]

    From Hobby, TX, via INT of the Hobby 090 deg. and Harvey, LA, 
266 deg. radials; Harvey; Semmes, AL; Montgomery, AL; Spartanburg, 
SC; Lynchburg, VA; Gordonsville, VA; Brooke, VA; INT Brooke 067 deg. 
and Coyle, NJ, 226 deg. radials; to Coyle. From Kennedy, NY; 
Kingston, NY; Albany, NY; Massena, NY, to the INT of the Massena 
037 deg. radial and the United States/Canadian Border.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 30, 1994.
Harold W. Becker,
Manager, Airspace-Rules and Aeronautical Information Division.
[FR Doc. 95-577 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P