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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1573

KAREN COX, Widow of George B. Cox, IV, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

POND CREEK MINING COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ 

COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, 

 Respondents. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. 

(05-6241-BLA; 08-0321-BLA) 

Submitted: September 22, 2009 Decided: November 6, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Karen Cox, Petitioner Pro Se. Waseem Karim, JACKSON KELLY, 

PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, William Steele Mattingly, JACKSON 

KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Steven D. Breeskin, 

Jeffrey Steven Goldberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Karen S. Cox (Cox), seeks to appeal the Benefits 

Review Board’s (Board) decision affirming the Administrative Law 

Judge’s decision denying survivor’s black lung benefits, and the 

Board’s subsequent decision denying reconsideration. We dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

 In a black lung benefits case, a party seeking review 

of a decision and order issued by the Board must file a petition 

for review in the court of appeals “for the circuit in which the 

injury occurred,” within sixty days after the order is issued. 

33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (2006). The sixty-day period for seeking 

review is jurisdictional, and a petition for review must be 

filed with the clerk of this court to stop the running of this 

period. Adkins v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 889 

F.2d 1360, 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). “[T]he sixty day filing period 

begins to run with the filing of a Board opinion with the Clerk 

of the Board.” Mining Energy, Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ 

Comp. Programs, 391 F.3d 571, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2004). 

 In this case, the Board’s decision was issued and 

served on the parties on December 16, 2008. Cox filed a request 

for reconsideration with the Board on January 22, 2009. This 

request was not timely filed, however, and did not serve to toll 

the sixty-day period for filing a petition for review in this 

court. See 20 C.F.R. § 802.406, .407 (2009) (establishing 

2 
3 

thirty-day period for requesting reconsideration by the Board 

and providing that timely reconsideration request tolls period 

for filing petition for review). Absent tolling, the sixty-day 

period for filing the petition for review expired on February 

17, 2009. Cox’s petition for review was not filed until May 18, 

2009. 

 Although Cox’s petition was filed within sixty days of 

the Board’s order denying her request for reconsideration, that 

order is not reviewable. Betty B. Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of 

Workers’ Comp. Programs, 194 F.3d 491, 495-96 (4th Cir. 1999). 

We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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. 

PETITION DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 6-K

                            REPORT OF FOREIGN ISSUER

                      Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
                       the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                                For April 8, 2004

                                EXTENDICARE INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                            3000 Steeles Avenue East
                        Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 9W2
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                        Form 20-F [ ]                Form 40-F [X]

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        Yes [ ]                      No [X]

                  If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to
the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): N/A

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit
Number            Description of Exhibit
------            ----------------------
<S>               <C>
99.1              2003 Annual Report
99.2              Notice of Annual Meeting of Holders of Subordinate Voting
                  Shares and Multiple Voting Shares and Management Information
                  and Proxy Circular dated March 12, 2004
99.3              Form of Proxy for Subordinate Voting Shares
99.4              Form of Proxy for Multiple Voting Shares
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                                                EXTENDICARE INC.

Date: April 8, 2004                             By: /s/ MARK W. DURISHAN
                                                    --------------------
                                                    Mark W. Durishan
                                                    Vice-President, Finance and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### Harvey Tanton et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Lefrak SBN Limited Partnership, Respondent, and Temco Service Industries, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[973 NYS2d 31]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered January 25, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendant Temco Service Industries (Temco) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and granted the cross motion of defendant Lefrak SEN LP (Lefrak) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Harvey Tanton was allegedly injured when he slipped and fell on a greasy condition on the sidewalk adjacent to a building owned by Lefrak. Lefrak had contracted with Temco to provide cleaning services to the building, including the adjacent sidewalk.

Dismissal of the complaint as against Lefrak was warranted. There is no evidence that the greasy condition was a recurring *442condition that Lefrak, as owner, had actual or constructive notice of and sufficient opportunity to remedy (see *generally Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836 [1986]; *see Dennis v Bartow Stationery,*28 AD3d 238 [1st Dept 2006]).

Regarding Temco, the record demonstrates that its motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Both Tanton and his coworker testified that Tanton’s clothing was covered with a greasy substance after the accident. Moreover, Temco’s employee testified to his general cleaning procedures, which included applying a degreaser to the sidewalk if necessary, brushing the area and washing away the degreaser, which itself was slippery. However, the employee did not testify as to what he actually did on the day of the accident. Accordingly, triable issues exist as to whether Temco properly followed its standard procedures in cleaning the sidewalk that morning, or applied a slippery degreaser but failed to remove it, thereby creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition (see *e.g. Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136, 141-142 [2002]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Freedman and Feinman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op 30126(11).]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NIGEL CLARKE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00060-H-5; 4:07-cv-00020-H) Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nigel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Nigel Clarke seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his second motion to reconsider the court’s prior order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Clarke has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Clarke’s motions for a certificate of appealability and to remand the case, and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### Allen HARRELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H.M. GAINES, Magistrate; C.S.B./ Badge No. 1364, Police Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-7315.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 24, 2006.

Allen Harrell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Allen Harrell, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the dis*493trict court. *Harrell v. Gaines,*No. 3:05-cv-00454-JRS (E.D. Va. June 22, 2006). We deny Harrell’s motions for discovery and for appointment of counsel 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.*
#### FAMOUS MUSIC CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs, v. Zoy J. MAHOLIAS, Defendant.

No. 71-C-206.

United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

Oct. 13, 1971.

Quarles, Herriott, Clemons, Teschner & Noelke, by Charles Q. Kamps and William A. Stearns, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs.

Harry T. Christon, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.

DECISION and ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

The defendant has moved to join AS-CAP as an indispensable party in this action. The plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of certain copyrighted music, which they claim the defendant has infringed. The latter seeks to have ASCAP added as a party on the ground that a complete determination of the controversy cannot be had without its presence under Rule 19(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A difficulty that arises from the defendant’s motion stems from the fact that the plaintiffs have claimed that they are principals, i.e. the owners of the copyright, and that ASCAP is only a licensing agent; since the principals are parties to the law suit, it is not clear why the agent must be brought in. In Leo Feist, Inc. v. Young, 138 F.2d 972 (7th Cir. 1943), the court of appeals resolved this matter adversely to the defendant’s application. At page 974, the court said:

> “In answer to defendant’s contention that the plaintiff may not maintain this action because it is not the real party in interest, we think the Copy*365right Act gives the right to sue for infringement to the copyright proprietor, 17 U.S.C.A. § 25, and since plaintiff is the proprietor, it may sue. M. Witmark & Sons v. Pastime Amusement Co., D.C., 298 F. 470, 474, 475, affirmed 4 Cir., 2 F.2d 1020; cf. Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works, 261 U.S. 24, 40, 43 S.Ct. 254, 67 L.Ed. 516. Even if the Copyright Act did not provide that such actions may be brought by the copyright proprietor, plaintiff is the principal and ASCAP is the agent so that under elementary principles, in an action against a stranger, the principal is the proper party plaintiff.”

The defendant has cited no authority to justify his contention that Mr. Maho-lias is entitled to have ASCAP included in this action. The court has found no support for such joinder, and accordingly, the motion will not be granted.

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the defendant’s motion to join ASCAP as an indispensable party be and hereby is denied.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1909 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, Library 

Buildings and Grounds for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint 

Items, Library Buildings and Grounds for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 JOINT ITEMS, LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND 

5 GROUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Joint Items, Library Buildings and Grounds for 

9 fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $64,544,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Execution Version
 AMENDMENT TO
GAS GATHERING AGREEMENT
 Amendment Producer Gatherer
 Alliance Agreement
 Purchase Agreement




---



##### 








---



##### 



QUICKSILVER RESOURCES INC.By:
    /s/ Glenn DardenName:
    Glenn DardenTitle:
    President & Chief Executive OfficerCOWTOWN PIPELINE PARTNERS L.P.By:
    Quicksilver Gas Services Operating
GP LLC, its general partnerBy:
    Quicksilver Gas Services Operating
LLC, its sole memberBy:
    Quicksilver Gas Services LP, its
sole memberBy:
    Quicksilver Gas Services GP LLC,
its general partnerBy:
    /s/
Robert G. PhillipsName:
    Robert G. PhillipsTitle:
    President Signature page to Alliance GGA Amendment




---



##### 



EXHIBIT C
  Dehydration
and CO2 Treating Services
 2 2
 2
 2
 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fernando Madera, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 862]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J), rendered May 10, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*
      *681
      *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility, including its resolution of any discrepancies in the main witness’s description of the perpetrator. The reliability of this witness’s identification was enhanced by the fact that she was familiar with defendant from his repeated presence in the area, and from having seen him shortly before the crime.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]). Defendant’s prior felony conviction was probative of credibility and was not so similar to the case on trial as to be unduly prejudicial. In addition, the court only permitted a limited inquiry into defendant’s record of misdemeanor convictions.

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Lamax A. McLean, Respondent, v Nakisha A. Bell, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 907]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to modify an order awarding the mother sole custody of the child, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated August 15, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for joint custody, with physical custody to remain with the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The father sought joint custody of the parties’ child, who has medical problems, to provide health insurance to the child and to be involved in issues regarding the child’s health, education, extracurricular activities, and religion. Contrary to the mother’s contention, the hearing court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record and is in the best interests of the child *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; *Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 93-94 [1982]; *Matter of Ish-Shalom v Wittmann,*19 AD3d 493, 493-494 [2005]; *Matter of Ring v Ring,*15 AD3d 406, 407 [2005]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Krausman, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50196 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUAN JOSE GUARDIOLA

- BARRIOS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06

- CR

- 2337

- 1

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Juan Jose Guardiola

- Barrios has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guardiola

- Barrios h a s no t filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 17, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50196 Document: 00512473838 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013No. 13

- 50196

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for le ave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-50196 Document: 00512473838 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
Unassociated Document


    


    Exhibit
      10.16

     

    AMENDMENT
      TO

    INVESTMENT
      ADVISORY AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

    BETWEEN

    GSC
      INVESTMENT CORP.

    AND

    GSCP
      (NJ), L.P.

     

    Amendment
      made this 23rd day of May 2007 by and between GSC Investment Corp., a Maryland
      corporation (the “Company”), and GSCP (NJ), L.P., a Delaware
      limited partnership (the “Investment Adviser”).

     

    WHEREAS,
      the Company has retained the Investment Adviser to furnish investment advisory
      services to the Company on the terms and conditions set forth in an Investment
      Advisory and Management Agreement dated as of March 21, 2007 (the
“Advisory Agreement”); and

     

    WHEREAS,
      the Board of Directors has approved an amendment to the Advisory Agreement
      to
      reconcile the fee calculation dates with the financial reporting schedule of
      the
      Company;

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable
      consideration, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     

    Amendment
      to Fee Calculation Dates.  Section 3 of the Advisory Agreement is
      hereby amended as follows:  (i) each reference to "calendar quarter"
      set forth in Section 3 is hereby replaced with "fiscal quarter" and each
      reference to “calendar year” is hereby replaced with “fiscal year” and (ii) the
      initial dates on which fees are payable under Section 3 are hereby changed
      from
      "June 30, 2007" to "August 31, 2007" with respect to the quarterly management
      and incentive fees and from "December 31, 2007" to "February 28, 2008" with
      respect to the annual incentive fee.

     

    IN
      WITNESS
      WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed
      on
      the date hereof.

     

    
      	 	
              GSC
                INVESTMENT CORP.

            	 
	 	 	 	 
	
               

            	
              By:
                

            	/s/
              David L. Goret 	 
	 	 	Name:
              David L. Goret 	 
	 	 	Title:
              Vice President and Secretary 	 
	 	 	 	 


    

    
       

      
        	 	GSCP
                (NJ), L.P.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	GSCP
                (NJ), Inc.,	 
	 	 	
                its
                  General Partner

              	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
                  

              	/s/
                David L. Goret 	 
	 	 	Name:
                David L. Goret 	 
	 	 	Title:
                Senior Managing Director and Secretary