alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barbara J. TUCK, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.

No. WD 50463.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 21, 1996.

Joseph R. Borich, III, Leawood, Kansas, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General and Theresa J. Miller, Special Assistant Attorney General, Mo. .Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and HANNA and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*66
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Barbara J. Tuck appeals denial of her petition for reinstatement of her driving privileges, which had been administratively revoked by the Director of Revenue under Section 577.041 as a result of her refusal to consent to analysis of her urine in connection with an arrest for driving while intoxicated. Finding that a published opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm by this summary order, but have furnished the parties with a memorandum setting forth our reasoning.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 23**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of DearbornBancorp Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-129769) of our reports dated March 9, 2007 withrespect to the 2006 consolidated financial statements of Dearborn Bancorp, Inc., and management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, which reports are included in the 2006 Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.                                                  /s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC   Crowe Chizek and Company LLC      Grand Rapids, Michigan
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ted Meisel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Overture Services, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Overture Services, Inc.

| |  |                                                                                  
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: /s/ TED MEISEL

Name: Ted Meisel
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

I, Todd Tappin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Overture Services, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Overture Services, Inc.

| |  |                                                                     
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: /s/ TODD TAPPIN
Name: Todd Tappin
Title: Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation (the “Company”), I,Mark A. Wendel, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(a)                                  the Form 10-Qfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)                                 the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, theconsolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company andits subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Date:  November 5, 2010 | /s/  Mark A. Wendel                                   |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Mark  A. Wendel                                       |
|                         | Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 10, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 06-50760

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JESUS LOPEZ-MOLINA

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, El Paso

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

Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that the appellee’s unopposed motion to

vacate sentence of the district court is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellee’s unopposed

motion to remand case to the United States District Court

for re-sentencing is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellee’s alternative

unopposed motion to extend time to file it’s brief until

thirty days after the court’s denial of the motion to vacate

and remand is DENIED as unnecessary.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT


      We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
UNION BANKSHARES, LTD. on Form S-8 relating to the Company's Equity Incentive
Plan, the Options Bonus Plan, the Equity Compensation Plan for Nonemployee
Directors, the Nonemployee Directors' Stock Option Plan and the Profit Sharing
401(k) Plan of our report dated February 25, 2000, except for Note 21, as to
which the date is March 17, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
UNION BANKSHARES, LTD. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders' equity
and cash flows for the three years then ended, which report appears in the
December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-KSB of UNION BANKSHARES, LTD.



                                    /s/ Baird, Kurtz & Dobson

                                    BAIRD, KURTZ & DOBSON


Denver, Colorado
March 30, 2000
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-10433

Tormach:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4936 

To amend the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to repeal restrictions on 

offshore wind leasing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2023 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ (for herself, Ms. ROSS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. KAMLAGERDOVE, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Ms. NORTON, Mr. TONKO, Mr. SCOTT

of Virginia, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. 

HUFFMAN, Mr. CARBAJAL, Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania, Mr. IVEY, Mr. 

BOWMAN, Mr. BEYER, Ms. TLAIB, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Ms. 

VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. TRONE, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. PALLONE, 

Mr. ESPAILLAT, and Mrs. FOUSHEE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to repeal 

restrictions on offshore wind leasing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nonrestrictive Off5 shore Wind Act’’ or the ‘‘NOW Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4936 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF OFFSHORE WIND LEASING RESTRIC2 TIONS. 

3 Paragraph (2) of section 50265(b) of Public Law 

4 117–169 (43 U.S.C. 3006(b)) is repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Rivera, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered on or about July 16, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro and Milonas, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

Board of Directors
Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck
Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30, 2002, and the related
consolidated statement of income for the nine month and three month periods
ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, and the consolidated statement of cash flows
for the nine month period ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, and the
consolidated statement of changes in shareholders' equity for the nine month
period ended September 30, 2002. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated January 31, 2002 we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2001, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

/s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.


Steubenville, Ohio
November 12, 2002

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
626 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, Ohio 43952-1982
Phone: 740-282-2771
Facsimile: 740-282-1606
Exhibit 99.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors

Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.

We have
reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc., and its consolidated subsidiary as of September 30, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income for the three-month and nine-month periods ended
September 30, 2009 and 2008, and the consolidated statement of changes in shareholders equity for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2009 and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended
September 30, 2009 and 2008. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.

We
conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making
inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our
review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance
sheet as of December 31, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 27, 2009 we expressed
an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.
|                        
|S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.    
|Steubenville, Ohio      
|November 13, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
       
<S>                           <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                        635221
<SECURITIES>                  215200
<RECEIVABLES>                 11069915
<ALLOWANCES>                  240000
<INVENTORY>                   3898251
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              22018622
<PP&E>                        1266118
<DEPRECIATION>                609325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                25529317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         17372857
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      44200
<OTHER-SE>                    7691162
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  25529317
<SALES>                       11691184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              15051165
<CGS>                         8286526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 5381607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              264411
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            847207
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1244077
<INCOME-TAX>                  583473
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           660604
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  660604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.15
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6806]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During 
the Week Ended March 10, 1995

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 
CFR 302.1701 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming 
Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each 
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: 50182.
    Date filed: March 6, 1995.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: April 3, 1995.
    Description: Application of United Parcel Service Co., pursuant to 
49 U.S.C. Section 41102 of the Act and Subpart Q of the Regulations 
applies for issuance of a new or amended certificate of public 
convenience and necessity, so as to authorize UPS to provide foreign 
air transportation of property and mail between any point or points in 
the United States, on the one hand, and any point or points in Canada, 
on the other hand.

    Docket Number: 50195.
    Date filed: March 10, 1995.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: April 7, 1995.
    Description: First Amendment to the Application of Aeroservicios 
Ecuatorianos, C.A., amends its pending Foreign Air Carrier Permit to 
encompass authority to perform scheduled foreign air transportation of 
property and mail between Guayaquil and Quito, Ecuador, via the 
intermediate points Bogota, Colombia and/or Panama City, Panama, and 
the U.S. co-terminal points Miami, New York, Houston and Los Angeles. 
AECA proposes to operate five (5) weekly frequencies to Miami; one (1) 
weekly frequency to New York; and one (1) weekly frequency to Los 
Angeles, as currently authorized by its homeland license, or such 
additional frequencies as may be authorized by the Ecuadorian aviation 
authorities from time to time. 
Paulette V. Twine,
Chief, Documentary Services Division.
[FR Doc. 95-6806 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 
**- 1702** 

JOHN G

. SINGLETARY, JR.; CARLA C. SINGLETARY ,
Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v.

CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON ZONING DEPARTMENT; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON LEGAL DEPARTMENT; R. KEITH SUMMEY, City of North Charleston Mayor; DARBIS BRIGGMAN, City of North Charleston Chief Building Official; WILLIAM B. GORE, Zoning Director; RICK WILLIAMS, Building Ins pector; MARY COHEN, Zoning Inspector; ADRIENNE WILLIAMS, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals; DONALD SCHAEFFER, ZBA Vice Chairman and May 5, 2009 Acting ZBA Chair ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:09

- cv
- 01612

- RMG )

Submitted : September 27 , 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John G. Singletary, Jr. and Carla C. Singletary, Appellants Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, SENN, MCDONALD & LEINBACK, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
John G. Singlet ary, Jr., and Carla C. Singletary
appeal from the district court ’ s order s accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief in
their civil action arising out of the denial of their request
for a zoning variance. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Singletary v. North Charleston , No.

2:09

- cv
- 01612

- RMG (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2012; May 17, 2012). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and le gal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 12

- 00785

- CV Tobey WAGGONER , Appellant

v. LEAD GENERATION AND MARKETING, LLC , Appellee From the 131st Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 09405 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe , Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 21, 2012 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On June 8, 2012, appellee Lead Generation and Marketing , LLC sued appellant Tobey Wag g oner and other defendants for various civil causes of action. On November 6, 2012, A ppellant ’s counsel’s assistant electronically filed a special appearance approximately nine minutes after the trial court called for announc e ments in the default judgment hearing. Appellant did not present a copy of the special appearance to opposing counsel or the court. Th e trial court was unable to confirm that the special appearance had been filed, and it granted a default04

- 12

- 00785

- CV

- 2

- judgment in favor of appellee. The default judgment d id not dispose of all parties and claims in the underlying suit

. On November 20, 2012, Appellan t filed a notice of appeal “ from an I nterlocutory O rder

. . . that , ‘in effect ,’ denied [ his ] S pecial A ppearance. ” In response to Appellant’s motions, on November 30, 2012, we stay ed all discovery with respect to Appellant , and on December 7, 2012, we sta yed all further proceedings in the underlying suit pe nding resolution of this appeal

— numbered 04

- 12

- 00785

- CV. On December 7, 2012, Appellee filed a motion to dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellee asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction in this appeal because the trial
court did not consider or deny Appellant’s special appearance. A party may appeal a district court’s interlocutory order that denies a special appearance.
T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51 .014(a) (West Supp. 2012 ) ; see BMC Software Belg

. , N.V. v. Marchand , 83 S.W.3d 789, 793 (Tex. 2002)

. However, the record does not show that the trial court considered or denied the special appearance . Further, the November 6, 2012 default judgment does n ot dispose of all pending parties and claims. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See BMC Software Belg. , 83 S.W.3d at 793; Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195. Appellee’s motion is gr anted. We withdraw our November 30, 2012 and December 7, 2012 orders in this appeal, and w e dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See BMC Software Belg. , 83 S.W.3d at 793; Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195

.
PER CURIAM