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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-1019

ROBERT L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ROBESON COUNTY; PURNELL

SWETT, Superintendent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-94-14-3-14-H1)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Norman Thompson,

THOMPSON & GODWIN, Dunn, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment in his civil action in which

he alleged constitutional violations and employment discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e (West 1981 & Supp. 1994) and the district court's order denying Appellant's motion to vacate and for

temporary retention of the record. With respect to the order granting summary judgment, 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. Davis v. Public

Schools of Robeson County, No. CA-94-13-3-14-H1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 1,

1994). We do not consider the district court's order denying the

motion to vacate and to retain the record because Appellant has

failed to note a timely appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). We

also deny Appellant's motion to strike and 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,483
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,516
<INVENTORY>                                     38,530
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,611
<PP&E>                                       2,007,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                 883,915
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,519,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          126,561
<BONDS>                                        453,917
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     74,000
<COMMON>                                       294,550
<OTHER-SE>                                     275,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,519,028
<SALES>                                        645,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               645,122
<CGS>                                          380,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  484,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                131,881
<INCOME-TAX>                                    49,456
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             82,425
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,425
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00<F1>
<FN>
<F1>*All common stock is owned by parent, no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
ent OF c¢
Sug

s&s W UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
: se National Institute of Standards and Technology
% EA é Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-

% ¢

s
‘Stares of ©

we

Prepayment Policy on NIST SRM Orders. Effective November 13, 2017

Recently, the United States Department of Treasury has emphasized the need to reduce and
eliminate delinquent debt by all federal agencies. In managing our receivables, NIST is bound
by various statutes such as the Federal Claims Collection Standards (31 CFR Parts 900-904),
Debt Collection Act, Debt Collection Improvement Act, OMB Circular No. A-129, and recently
the Data Act of 2014. For NIST to be compliant with these laws, we must be proactive in
reducing the administrative burden of managing delinquent debts which includes the
assessment and collection of late fees per the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (31 U.S.C. § 3717)
and delinquent debt referrals to Department of Treasury. In order to comply with these federal
statutes, the NIST SRM Program is enacting a prepayment policy effective November 13, 2017.
Any purchases of NIST SRM reference materials will require payment at the time of order.

The NIST SRM Program strives for and achieves one day shipping for nearly 98 percent of all
orders once processed and payment is received. Credit card orders will be processed the same
day. Orders paid by check or Fedwire funds transfer will be processed when payment
confirmation is received by Treasury in the NIST Receivables office.

We regret any inconvenience or burden this may cause, however, this policy is consistent with
the NIST SRM terms and conditions (https://www.nist.gov/srm/ordering-policies-and-
pricing/terms-and-conditions) and will support the requirements dictated by the Department of
Treasury.

If prepayment for SRM purchases presents a hardship to your organization, you may purchase
SRMs using one of NIST’s licensed distributors listed here: https://www.nist.gov/srm/ordering-
policies-and-pricing/licensed-distributors

Please do not hesitate to conjagt me if y quire further assistance.

Steven Choquette, Ph.D
Director of the Office of Reference Materials
National Institute of Standard and Technology
steven.choquette@nist.gov

NIST
Exhibit 12.1
 NASH-FINCH COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Fiscal Year EndedDecember 31,
    
    
    December 30,
    
    
    December 29,
    
    
    January 3,
    
    
    January 2,(in thousands, except ratios)
    
    2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2010Fixed Charges:Interest expense on
indebtedness
    
    $
    27,877
    
    
    $
    30,840
    
    
    $
    28,088
    
    
    $
    26,466
    
    
    $
    24,372Rent expense (1/3
of total rent
expense)
    
    
    10,386
    
    
    
    9,966
    
    
    
    9,057
    
    
    
    9,496
    
    
    
    10,318Total fixed charges
    
    $
    38,263
    
    
    $
    40,806
    
    
    $
    37,145
    
    
    $
    35,962
    
    
    $
    34,690Earnings:Earnings (loss)
before provision
for income taxes
    
    $
    63,721
    
    
    $
    (21,689
    )
    
    $
    53,015
    
    
    $
    53,791
    
    
    $
    23,750Fixed charges
    
    
    38,263
    
    
    
    40,806
    
    
    
    37,145
    
    
    
    35,962
    
    
    
    34,690Total earnings
    
    $
    101,984
    
    
    $
    19,117
    
    
    $
    90,160
    
    
    $
    89,753
    
    
    $
    58,440Ratio
    
    
    2.67
    
    
    
    0.47
    
    
    
    2.43
    
    
    
    2.50
    
    
    
    1.68
ex-10.23

 EXHIBIT 10.23
 

 KEY LINK ASSETS CORP.
 NOTE PAYABLE
 $3,020
 March 20, 2015
 Chicago, Illinois
 

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Key Link Assets Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) promises to pay to the order of Shawn Clark, together with any successors or assigns (collectively, the "Holder"), the principal sum of Three-Thousand and Twenty   (US $3,020). The Note is non-interest bearing and bears no collateral.
 

 The Note will be paid in full on June 30, 2016. The Company may redeem the Notes in part, or in full, prior to the due date of the Note. 
 

 Payments of principal shall be made at the place that Holder from time to time shall direct in writing, or, in the absence of direction, at 216 South Jefferson Street, Suite LL, Chicago, Illinois 60661.
 

 Upon a default by the undersigned to make any payment due hereunder, and continuing for five (5) calendar days after notice has been given to the undersigned, and at the option of the Holder, all of the unpaid indebtedness evidenced by this Note shall become immediately due and payable and shall accrue interest at the highest rate of interest then permitted by law.
 

 This Note is submitted by the undersigned to the Holder in Chicago, Illinois and shall be deemed to have been made thereat. This Note shall be governed and controlled by the laws of the State of Illinois as to interpretation, enforcement, validity, construction, effect, choice of law, and in all other respects.
 

 To induce the Holder to accept this Note, the undersigned irrevocably agrees that, subject to the Holder's sole and absolute election, all actions and proceedings in any way, manner or respect arising out of or from or related to this Note shall be litigated in courts having situs within the County of Cook, State of Illinois, the undersigned hereby covenants and submits to the jurisdiction of any local, state or federal court located within said county and state.
 

 Any notice, designation, demand, consent or request required herein to be given or to be served upon the undersigned by the Holder shall be deemed to have been given or served upon mailing, if addressed to the undersigned at 216 South Jefferson Street, Suite LL, Chicago, Illinois 60661, or upon actual receipt by the undersigned.
  
 In the event of default hereunder, the undersigned agrees to pay all expenses, including, without limitation, attorney fees, incurred by the Holder in endeavoring to enforce the rights of Holder hereunder.
 

 Key Link Assets Corp.
 

 

 By:   /s/ Shawn Clark
       Shawn Clark, Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, JEFFREY D. SERKES, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K of MONONGAHELA POWER
COMPANY.

     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 annual
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

          a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

          b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

     6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: September 24, 2003                           /s/ Jeffrey D. Serkes
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   Jeffrey D. Serkes
                                                   Principal Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00681-CR

NO. 03-18-00682-CR

Charles Wayne Bryant, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 43068, 43112, HONORABLE JACK W. PRESCOTT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Charles Wayne Bryant, appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the trial

court’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. “The standard for determining jurisdiction

is . . . whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008). In criminal cases, an appeal is authorized only when a trial court “enters a

judgment of guilt or other appealable order.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

art. 44.02 (“A defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter

prescribed . . . .”). A post-judgment order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not an

appealable order. See Abbott, 271 S.W.3d at 697 (holding that no rule or statutory or constitutional

provision authorizes appeal of post-judgment order denying time-credit); Mayzone v. State,

No. 13-17-00300-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 10468, at *1(Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 9, 2017, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that there is no appellate jurisdiction over denial
of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc); Castor v. State, 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco

2006, no pet.) (same). Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.

App. P. 43.2(f).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Kelly

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 16, 2019

Do Not Publish

2
<PAGE>

                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 Historic Preservation Properties 1989
LP ("HPP'89") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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 HPP'89.

/s/ Robert Gunn
-----------------------
Robert Gunn
Asset Manager
(Performing similar functions of Financial Officer)

Date: August 8, 2005
#### Larry L. DUPONT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert KUPEC, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-6080.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 25, 2001.

*171Larry L. Dupont, pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Celia Anderson Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Larry L. Dupont seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Dupont v. Kupec,*No. CA-00-1007-S (D.Md. Dec. 29, 2000). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 10.15  MOCON, INC.  DESCRIPTION OF NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTOR
COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS  Retainer and Meeting Fees.Each
of the non-employee directors of MOCON, Inc. receives an annual retainer
fee of $10,000, paid in equal quarterly installments, without regard to the
number of board of directors or committee meetings held or attended by such
director, along with an additional $500 for each board meeting or committee
meeting attended in person or via telephone. The Chairman of the Audit
Committee receives an additional annual retainer fee of $3,000, paid in equal
quarterly installments.  Stock Options.Non-employee
directors are granted options to purchase shares of MOCON common stock from
time to time in the sole discretion of the board of directors.  Director Retirement Plan.Pursuant
to the MOCON, Inc. Director Retirement Plan, a non-employee director who
has served on the board of directors of MOCON for at least five years will,
upon retirement, receive an amount equal to the annual retainer fee such
director would have been entitled to receive during the fiscal year in which
such directors retirement occurs. This payment, however, will not be made to a
director who, following his or her retirement, continues to serve as a
consultant to MOCON or any of its subsidiaries. Any amount payable under this
retirement plan will be paid as determined by the MOCON board of directors in
its sole discretion following such directors retirement.  Reimbursement of Expenses.Non-employee
directors are reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in attending board and
committee meetings.
10888.

#### Hines, director-general, *v.*Swint, by next friend.

Decided March 11, 1920.

Action for damages; from Henry superior court —Judge Searcy. August 2, 1919.

*Harris, Harris & Witman, E. M. Smith, Paul Turner,*for plaintiff in error.

*Reagan & Reagan,*contra.

Smith, J.

The ruling in the ease of *Hines*v. *Wilson,*ante, 63, is controlling in this case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
**Exhibit23.B**

CONSENT OFPRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-3 (No. 33-44376) and S-8 (333-135993, 333-125234,333-125115, 333-115741, 333-108123 and 333-90307) of Mercantile BanksharesCorporation of our report dated March 10, 2006 relating to the financialstatements, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Baltimore, Maryland            |   |   |
| February 28, 2007         |   |   |

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALBERTO MONTELONGO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00001-CR

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20150D02224)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until April 14, 2022. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT. 

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Joe A. Spencer, Jr., the Appellant’s attorney, prepare 

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before April 14, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of March, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4767 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to triple the amount of 

the credit allowed for basic research. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 7, 2004 

Mr. SMITH of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to triple 

the amount of the credit allowed for basic research. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF CREDIT FOR BASIC 

4 RESEARCH. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 41(a) of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general 

7 rule for credit for increasing research activities) is amend8 ed by striking ‘‘20 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘60 percent’’. 
2 

•HR 4767 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
11539.

#### Perry *v.*The State.

Luke, J.

The evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction under the second count only of the indictment; and although he was convicted and sentenced under both the first and the second counts, this error was cured by the subsequent judgment of the court (rendered during the same term of the court and before the defendant had begun to .serve the original sentence Imposed upon him), striking the sentence *482imposed under the first count and allowing only the sentence imposed under the second count to stand.

Decided July 14, 1920.

Indictment for robbery; from Chatham superior court — Judge Meldrim. April 9, 1920.

The first count of the indictment charged robbery by force and intimidation, and the second count charged robbery by sudden snatching.

*Aaron*Kravitch, for plaintiff in error.

*Walter C.*Hartridge, *solicitor-general,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*