alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1694

MEL M. MARIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS; CHARLES H. DORSEY, JR.; JOHN F. MUDD; ROBERT H. REINHARDT; CHRISTOPHER B. KEHOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA96-3070-CCB) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 25, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mel M. Marin, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Julia Melville Freit, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mel M. Marin appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action and denying his motions for reconsideration and to amend his complaint. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Marin v. Maryland Bd. of Law Examiners , No. CA-96-3070-CCB (D. Md. Aug. 5, 1997; Apr. 7, 1998). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 408 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 408

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 408

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE.

    (a) In General.--When title to the land described in subsection (b) 
has vested in the United States in fee simple, the boundary of Sleeping 
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is revised to include such land in that 
park.
    (b) Land Described.--The land referred to in subsection (a) 
consists of approximately 104.45 acres of unimproved lands generally 
depicted on National Park Service map number 634/80078, entitled 
``Bayberry Mills, Inc. Crystal River, MI Proposed Expansion Unit to 
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore''. The Secretary of the Interior 
shall keep such map on file and available for public inspection in the 
appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
    (c) Purchase of Lands Authorized.--The Secretary of the Interior 
may acquire the land described in subsection (b), only by purchase from 
a willing seller.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ACQUISITION BY EXCHANGE OR CONVEYANCE.

    The Secretary of the Interior may not acquire any of the land 
described in subsection (b) of section 1 through any exchange or 
conveyance of lands that are within the boundary of the Sleeping Bear 
Dunes National Lakeshore as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 8, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the inclusion in this registration statement on Form S-1
of our report dated February 13, 1997, on our audit of the consolidated 
financial statements of Community Pacific Broadcasting Company L.P. We also 
consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts".




                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

San Jose, California
May 1, 1998
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Novellus Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;
 Dated: November 28, 2006
    By:
    /s/ William H. KurtzWilliam H. KurtzExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6930

WALTER SCOTT REYNOLDS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DENNIS BIDWELL, Warden, FCI Cumberland, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA99-1270-PJM) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 22, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Golden, GOLDEN & MEIZLISH CO., L.P.A., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on May 17, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on May 18, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Walter Scott Reynolds appeals the district court order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court memorandum and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Reynolds v. Bidwell , No. CA-99-1270-PJM (D. Md. May 18, 1999). * 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
#### Robert A. O’Bryan *v.*Sarah E. O’Bryan, etc.

Executors and Administrators — Purchase and Sale'of Land by Administrator as Commissioner.

Where an administrator was appointed commissioner to sell land of the estate, and purchased the land at the sale, and afterwards isold it at an advance over the price paid by him, he will be held to account for the excess of the price received over the price paid by him.

*347APPEAL FROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT.

January 17, 1873.

*Fcdrleigh, far appellant.*

*Kinchloe, Lewis, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

It is authoritatively settled that if an executor or other trustee . at a sale of the trust property buy it, the beneficiary shall have the election to hold him- to the purchase, or disregard it, and claim restitution of the thing sold, or payment of its full value. All profits made by a trustee, by the use of any trust property, belongs to the beneficiary. *Longest's Adm’r v. Tyler’s Ex’r,*1 Duvall 192.

' In this case the administrator was the commissioner to make the ■ sale, and while it is true that he did not as auctioneer cry the sale, still it was a sale conducted by himself; he alone could approve the bonds which the purchaser might tender, report whether it was made in conformity' to the judgment, and the manner it was conducted. He may be said to be seller and buyer, vendor and vendee, positions inconsistent, and such as the chancellor can not recognize, although the sale may have been conducted with the utmost fairness.

Appellant certainly sold the land for a considerable advance, which is conclusive of the fact that he purchased the property at a reduced price, and besides the indebtedness of the estate for which the land was sold amounted .to only $157.60, and it does not appear that it was necessary to sell the whole tract to pay that sum.

The court below adjudged correctly in holding appellant liable for the amount he sold the land for after crediting him by the amount he paid for it, and what the estate of his intestate owed him.

Judgment *affirmed.*
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 of American Standard Companies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, G. Peter DAloia, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

/s/ G. Peter DAloia

G. Peter DAloia
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer





August 9, 2002
Order filed, June 30, 2016

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00116

- CV

____________ OSAMA ABDULLATIF AND ALI MOKARAM , Appellant

V.

ALI CHOUNDHRI , Appellee

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 27197



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due May 12, 2016

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record.
The record has not been filed with the court. Be cause the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Judith Kulhanek, Elizabeth Cordova, and Patricia Palmer , the substitute court reporter s , to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the
date of this order

. PER CURIAM
#### NATIONSBANK OF N.C. v. AMERICAN DOUBLOON CORP.

No. 164P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 494

Petition by defendants (Parsons and Resources Planning Corp.) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 21 Filed: 09/22/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:56
EXHIBIT 21

                                MAXXAM INC.

                  PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

          Listed below are MAXXAM Inc.'s principal subsidiaries and the
jurisdiction of their incorporation or organization.  Certain subsidiaries
are omitted which, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary,
would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                       State or Province
                                                       of Incorporation
                       Name                             or Organization
-----------------------------------------------    -----------------------
<S>                                                 <C>
ALUMINUM OPERATIONS
     Alpart Jamaica Inc.                            Delaware
     Alumina Partners of Jamaica (partnership)      Delaware
     Anglesey Aluminium Limited                     United Kingdom
     Kaiser Alumina Australia Corporation           Delaware
     Kaiser Aluminum Corporation                    Delaware
     Kaiser Aluminium International, Inc.           Delaware
     Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation         Delaware
     Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical of Canada Limited   Ontario
     Kaiser Bauxite Company                         Nevada
     Kaiser Finance Corporation                     Delaware
     Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite Company (partnership)   Jamaica
     Kaiser Jamaica Corporation                     Delaware
     Queensland Alumina Limited                     Queensland
     Volta Aluminium Company Limited                Ghana

FOREST PRODUCTS OPERATIONS
     Britt Lumber Co., Inc.                         California
     MAXXAM Group Inc.                              Delaware
     MAXXAM Properties Inc.                         Delaware
     Salmon Creek Corporation                       Delaware
     Scotia Pacific Holding Company                 Delaware
     The Pacific Lumber Company                     Delaware

REAL ESTATE OPERATIONS
     Horizon Corporation                            Delaware
     MAXXAM Property Company                        Delaware
     MCO Properties Inc.                            Delaware
     MCO Properties L.P. (limited partnership)      Delaware
     MXM General Partner, Inc.                      Delaware
     MXM Mortgage L.P. (limited partnership)        Delaware
     Palmas del Mar Properties, Inc.                Delaware

RACE PARK OPERATIONS
     New SHRP Acquisition, Inc.                     Delaware
     SHRP General Partner, Inc.                     Texas
     Sam Houston Entertainment Corp.                Texas
     Sam Houston Race Park, Ltd. (limited           Texas
          partnership)

OTHER
     MAXXAM Group Holdings Inc.                     Delaware

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Cynthia A. Scheuer, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Mechanical 
	Technology Incorporated;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
	untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact 	necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances 	under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to 	the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible 
	for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and 
	procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 
	15(d)-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such 
	disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
	supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the 
	registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made 
	known to us by others within those entities, particularly during 
	the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

1. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure 
	controls and procedures and presented in this report 
	our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure 
	controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
	this report based on such evaluation; and

1. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter  in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal 
	control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,

based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over 
		financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit 
		committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing 
		the equivalent functions):
		a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the 
			design or operation of internal control over financial reporting







1

which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's
			ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
			information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
			other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
			internal control over financial reporting.

March 22, 2005		/S/ CYNTHIA A. SCHEUER						Cynthia A. Scheuer

Chief Financial Officer































































































2
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 3.1 Roof Assembly Details (Flashing)

No flashing

No flashing

Item 3.1 Roof Assembly Details (Flashing) – Flashing to protect against ignition by combustible debris and embers.

No flashing

6” tall

flashing

(illustrated)

6” tall

flashing

(illustrated)

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
Fire Hazards 1. If flashing is added on top of existing siding, siding can still

ignite if the surrounding ignitesand risk igniting the roof 

6-inch 

sting 

and 

· Hardening Actions: Metal flashing at roof-to-wall joint · Applicable Conditions: Combustible siding at roof-to-wall intersection · Performance Goals: Prevent ignition of roof from burning accumulated debris Installation Cautions 

ing), 

e: A 

 1/1 

1 1 1. Use fire resistant caulking to seal flashing and do not leave combustibles exposed.
<PAGE>   1
                  [BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP LETTERHEAD]



                                  June 23, 1998


i2 Technologies, Inc.
909 E. Las Colinas Blvd., 16th Floor
Irving, Texas 75039

         Re:      i2 Technologies, Inc. Registration Statement on
                  Form S-3 for 3,266,470 Shares of Common Stock

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as counsel to i2 Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the sale by certain stockholders
of the Company of up to 3,266,470 shares of the Company's Common Stock
(collectively, the "Shares"), pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act").

         This opinion is being furnished in accordance with the requirements of
Item 16 of Form S-3 and Item 601(b)(5)(i) of Regulation S-K.

         We have reviewed the Company's charter documents and the corporate
proceedings taken by the Company in connection with the issuance and sale of the
Shares. Based on such review, we are of the opinion that the Shares have been
duly authorized, were legally issued and are fully paid and nonassessable.

         We consent to the filing of this opinion letter as Exhibit 5.1 to the
Registration Statement and to the reference to this firm under the caption
"Legal Matters" in the prospectus which is part of the Registration Statement.
In giving this consent, we do not thereby admit that we are within the category
of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Act, the rules and
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated thereunder, or
Item 509 of Regulation S-K.

         This opinion letter is rendered as of the date first written above and
we disclaim any obligation to advise you of facts, circumstances, events or
developments which hereafter may be brought to our attention and which may
alter, affect or modify the opinion expressed herein. Our opinion is expressly
limited to the matters set forth above and we 



<PAGE>   2
i2, Technologies, Inc.                                            June 23, 1998
                                                                         Page 2


render no opinion, whether by implication or otherwise, as to any other matters 
relating to the Company or the Shares.


                                           Very truly yours,




                                           BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7**  **749**

DANTE A. JONES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN; DARRYL WEBSTER, Facility Administrator; JON R. SCRAMLIN; WILLIAM DOYLE , Defendants

- Appellee s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:1 3

- cv - 0 0944

- ELH )

Submitted : February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dante A. Jones , Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane

- Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circu it.2 PER CURIAM:

Dante A. Jones appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. S ee Jones v. Green , No. 1:13

- cv - 00944

- ELH (D. Md. Sept.
25, 2013). We deny Jones’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and ar gument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 26, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00448

- CV

Greg Fullmer and Melanie A. Rocha, Appellant s

v.

360 Mortgage Group, LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUS TICES PURYEAR, GOODW IN, AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT S ’ MOTION S

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on Ju ne 24, 2013. Appellan t s have

filed motion s to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion s , the Court agrees that the

motion s should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion s and dismisses the appeal

.

Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party , both in this Court and the court

below.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1957
In Re: LAWRENCE E. BOWLING, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-46-2) Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 11, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence E. Bowling, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lawrence E. Bowling petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to disqualify himself and proceed no further in No. CA-01-46-2, currently pending in the Southern District of West Virginia. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). A judge’s involvement in prior proceedings involving the petitioner ordinarily is not cause for granting the writ. Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). Here, we discern no grounds for granting the requested relief. We therefore deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED