alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jerome Julius BROWN, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Ronald R.J. HENDLER, Chief Executive Officer; John D. Ashcroft, Department of Justice; Margaret Ann Nolan, Assistant Attorney General, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-1300.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 23, 2009.

Decided: May 11, 2009.

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action and denying his motion for copy work at government expense. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, parties in a civil case are required to file the notice of appeal no more than sixty days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s orders were entered on July 20, 2001, and November 16, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on February 18, 2009. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(d). Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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.*
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION


 I, David Vozick, Co-Principal Executive Officer of AFP Imaging Corporation,
certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging
     Corporation;

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;

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 15d-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 enable 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 report is being prepared;

         b)  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

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 the 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 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 controls over financial reporting.









Date: February 11, 2005             /s/     David Vozick
                                   ------------------------------
                                            David Vozick
                                       Chairman of the Board
                                   Co-Principal Executive Officer

                                       17
#### AKHTAR MASOOD, Employee v. ERWIN OIL COMPANY, Employer, EMC INSURANCE COMPANIES, Carrier

No. 94A07

(Filed 12 October 2007)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 18Í N.C. App. 424, 639 S.E.2d 118 (2007), reversing and remanding an opinion and award filed on 23 November 2005 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 September 2007.

*Patterson Harkavy LLP, by Leto Copeley, for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Patterson, Dilthey, Clay & Bryson, L.L.P., by Phillip J. Anthony and Christopher J. Derrenbacher, for defendant-appellants.*

*Hatch, Little & Bunn, LLP, by Elizabeth T. Martin and Harold W. Berry, Jr., for North Carolina Petroleum Marketers Association, Inc., amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

As to the appeal of right based on the dissenting opinion, the members of the Court are equally divided. Therefore, the Court of Appeals opinion is left undisturbed without precedential value. *See, e.g., Barham v. Hawk,*360 N.C. 358, 625 S.E.2d 778 (2006).

*580AFFIRMED.

Justice HUDSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### Vandiver *v.*Wright.

This case is ruled by *Lewis, Leonard & Go.*v. *Brown,*89 *Ga.*115, and *Harrington*v. *Findley, Lb.*385.

July 30, 1894.

*Certiorari.*Before Judge Henry. Bloyd superior •court. September term, 1893.

W. W. Vandiver and J. W. Ewing, for plaintiff.

Hal Wright, for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Quicksilver Gas Services LP;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;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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Philip CookPhilip CookSenior Vice President  Chief Financial Officer
----

| (1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m(a) or 78o(d); and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 26, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Robert T. Strong                  |   |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | Robert T. Strong                      |   |
|                 |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

| Date: March 26, 2010 | By:    | /s/ John J. Augustine   |   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | John J. Augustine       |   |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

| Note: | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Quaint Oak Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Richard E. Snyder, Appellant, v Edgar M. Bronfman, Jr., Respondent.

Submitted September 14, 2009;

decided September 17, 2009

Reported below, 57 AD3d 393.

Motion by Business Council of New York State, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4044 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.4044

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

To clarify the treatment of certain charitable contributions under title 
                         11, United States Code.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Religious Liberty and Charitable 
Donation Clarification Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS IN BANKRUPTCY.

    Section 1325(b)(3) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, other than subparagraph (A)(ii) of paragraph (2),'' after 
``paragraph (2)''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board [STB Ex Parte No. 646 (Sub-No. 2)]
 AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: By a decision served on May 11, 2009, the Board adopted the evidence filed by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) calculating railroad-specific average state tax rates to be included in the Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method (RSAM) benchmarks for 2002 through 2007
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy J. Strafford, (202) 245-0356. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision served on May 11, 2009, adopted the evidence filed by the AAR calculating railroad-specific average state tax rates to be included in the RSAM benchmarks for 2002 through 2007. The railroad-specific average state tax rates are set forth in the table below. Average State Tax Rates
[In percent]
Railroad
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007BNSF
5.487
5.471
5.238
5.196
5.183
5.650CNGT
6.512
6.582
6.738
6.703
6.701
6.684CSXT
5.960
6.362
6.312
6.101
5.941
5.702KCS
5.791
5.805
5.839
4.728
5.992
6.494NS
6.213
6.583
6.589
6.376
6.194
5.986SOO
7.890
8.346
7.828
7.635
7.591
7.501UP
5.443
5.405
5.406
5.393
6.275
6.163
 Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. A copy of the Board's decision is available for inspection or copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 131, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, and is posted on the Board's Web site, 
                    *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources. Decided: May 8, 2009. By the Board, Acting Chairman Mulvey, and Vice Chairman Nottingham. Kulunie L. Cannon, Clearance Clerk.


[FR Doc. E9-11254 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Employment Agreement between Yuasa, Inc and Richard W. Zuidema



 Exhibit 10.16 
 Letter, dated April 1, 2007, amending the Employment Agreement between Yuasa, Inc. and Richard W. Zuidema 
 EnerSys 
 JOHN D. CRAIG 
 Chairman, President & CEO 
 April 1, 2007 
 Mr. Richard W. Zuidema 

	c/o	 EnerSys 


	 	 2366 Bernville Road 


	  	 Reading, PA 19605 

 Dear Richard: 
 With reference to your employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) with EnerSys Delaware Inc., f/k/a Yuasa, Inc., (the
“Company”), dated November 9, 2000, pursuant to which you are currently employed as Executive Vice President Administration of the Company, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has approved
that your salary as set forth in Section 3 of the Employment Agreement is increased to $378,000.00, effective as of April 1, 2007. 
 Except as expressly set forth in the letter, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  

			
		
	By:	 	  
		 	John D. Craig
		 	Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer


 JDC:jls
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00488

- CV

Robert DUNLAP, Appellant

v.

Charles TROIS, Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 00955

Honorable Mar y Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On October 8 , 2019 , this court notified the court reporter that the reporter’s record was

late. The next day, t he court reporter filed a notification of late record, stating that the reporter’s record was not filed because appellant failed to request the record . The court reporter also stated that appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record and that appellant was no t entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

Rule 34.6(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires appellant to “ request in writing that the official reporter prepare the reporter’s record.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6( b). The request must des ignate the portions of the proceedings to be included as well as any exhibits. Id.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof by October 28, 2019 that he has properly requested the record from the court reporter

.

It is further ORDERED that appellant provide written proof by O ctober 2 8, 2019 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the
date of this order, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See id. R. 37.3(c)._________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand a nd affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of October, 2019

.

___________________________________ LUZ ESTRADA

, Chief Deputy Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chauncey Girard, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 488]

*1154McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered March 11, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree.

After being released from state prison, defendant broke into his former girlfriend’s house, entered her bedroom and punched her new boyfriend in the face. As a result, defendant was charged by indictment with burglary in the first degree and assault in the third degree. Following the former girlfriend’s direct testimony at trial, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the first degree in satisfaction of the indictment and in exchange for the People’s recommendation of an eight-year prison sentence. Despite the People making that recommendation, County Court sentenced defendant to 16 years in prison, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

We reject defendant’s assertion that County Court lacked jurisdiction, as the record indicates that an indictment was filed well before he entered his plea. By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited review of his arguments that County Court should have redacted certain language from one of his statements and that the court erred in its *Ventimiglia*ruling *(see People v*Johnson, 104 AD3d 705, 706 [2013]; *People v Gerber,*182 AD2d 252, 259-261 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 1026 [1992]; *People v Winchenbaugh,*120 AD2d 811, 813 [1986]; *see also People v Taylor,*65 NY2d 1, 5 [1985]). Given defendant’s criminal history, his refusal to accept responsibility, and his commission of this crime within hours of being released from prison and in violation of a parole condition that he not go near his former girlfriend’s home, we cannot find that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive.

Peters, PJ., Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### The Western Union Telegraph Company *v.*Hines.

In an action by the sendee of a telegram against the company for special damages, the case being one in which the contents of the telegram sent are material, the loss by the plaintiff of the telegram received will not lay the foundation for introducing parol evidence of its contents, without accounting, by notice to produce or otherwise, for the non-production of the telegram written and delivered by the sender for transmission. If the case of *Cincinnati &c..Railway*v. *Disbrow & Co.,*76 *Qa.*253, is to be construed as at variance with this ruling, it is in conflict with sections 3767, 3768, of the code, as well as with the established law as it existed prior to the code. For this reason the case mentioned should be treated as colored and controlled by its own peculiar facts, including the circumstance that the party whose duplicate of the contract was not lost was probably put upon notice prior to the trial that the duplicate of the other party had been lost, this notice resulting from the examination of a witness by interrogatories before the trial to prove the loss and verify a copy of the instrument.

March 26, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

*Judgment reversed,.*

Action for damages. Before Judge Henry. Floyd superior court. March term, 1893.

*431Bigby, Reed, Berry & Foote and Wrights & Harper, for plaintiff in error.

W. T. Turnbull and W. H. Mitchell, *contra.*

The suit was for failure of the telegraph company to deliver to plaintiff a message, to wit: “Birmingham, Ala., March 11, 1889. To John C. Hines, 515 Broad street, Rome, Ga. Have work; come at once. J. B. Dabney.” Plaintiff alleged, that because of said nondelivery he did not go to Birmingham, and thereby failed to obtain employment which, under previous contract with Dabney (setting it forth), he would have obtained had he received the notice contained in the message and gone to Birmingham in response thereto. He obtained a verdict, and defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled. The only ground of the motioxx material to this report is, that the court allowed plaintiff to testify to the contents of the message set out in the declaration, over objection that it did not appear that the ox’iginal message filed in the Birmingham office was lost or mislaid, and that said origixial was the best evidence of its owxi contents. It appeared from plaintiff’s evidence, that the message set out in the declaration was delivered to him, but xxot until twelve days after its date, axxd not uxxtil he had gone to the telegraph office and inquired if there was a message for him; and that he delivered this dispatch to his counsel, and it was afterwards lost, and though diligently searched for, could not be found. He testified that the copy set out in the declaration was correct.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 435

AN ACT

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate

a segment of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook

in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System,

and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Lower Farmington

5 River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act

6 of 2005’’.
 †

2

S 435 ES

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL SEGMENT OF FARM2 INGTON RIVER AND SALMON BROOK IN CON3 NECTICUT FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDI4 TION TO NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIV5 ERS SYSTEM.

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—Section 5(a) of the Wild and

7 Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by add8 ing at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(139) LOWER FARMINGTON RIVER AND SALMON

10 BROOK, CONNECTICUT.—The segment of the Farmington

11 River downstream from the segment designated as a rec12 reational river by section 3(a)(156) to its confluence with

13 the Connecticut River, and the segment of the Salmon

14 Brook including its mainstream and east and west

15 branches.’’.

16 (b) TIME FOR SUBMISSION.—Not later than 3 years

17 after the date on which funds are made available to carry

18 out this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit

19 to Congress a report containing the results of the study

20 required by the amendment made by subsection (a).
†

3

S 435 ES

1 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

2 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec3 essary to carry out this Act.

Passed the Senate December 16, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 435

AN ACT

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to desposes. and Scenic Rivers System, and for other pur- study for potential addition to the National Wild Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut for ignate a segment of the Farmington River and