alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER

CASUAL PAYMENT CENTER

3833 S DEVELOPMENT AVE BOISE, ID 83705-5354

PHONE: 877-471-2262 FAX: 208-433-6405

EMAIL: CASUALPAY@BLM.GOV

 

For office use only:

Faxed to IBC: Date______ Initials______

DUPLICATE W-2 REQUEST FORM

Check one: BIA BLM FWS NPS 

NAME: SSN: 

....................................................................................................................................... 

I HAVE NOT received/lost my original W-2 for casual earnings paid in year(s) . 

*If no year is indicated, most previous year will be assumed.

Please indicate mailing address:

MAILING ADDRESS: 

CITY: STATE: ZIP: 

This WILL permanently change my address. 

 *If address box is not marked, your address WILL NOT be permanently changed. 

If requesting W-2 be sent by fax, indicate fax number below (if no fax information indicated, the W-2 

will be mailed to address above): 

EMAIL ADDRESS: *Emails will be encrypted. Viewing on mobile device not recommended. 

 FAX TO #: 

PHONE #: 

 *By signing below you are authorizing the right to fax Privacy Act Information.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

SIGNATURE: DATE: PHONE #: 

Privacy Act Statement: Information on this form is collected under the authority of the Administratively Determined (AD) Pay Plan. Information collected via this form is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974 and Privacy Act 

System of Records Notice DOI-85. The primary use of this information is to start, stop, or change entitlements and to process any voluntary or involuntary deductions on pay and leave issues. The information you furnish will 

be used to identify records properly associated with you, to obtain additional information to update your record, if necessary, and to determine any present or future entitlement. Disclosure may be made only to authorized 

persons according to Title 5 USC 552a and for uses described in System of Records Notices DOI-85. Submission of the information in this form is voluntary; however, requests will not be completed without the information 

needed to process the request. 

Revised 02/2022
Document

Exhibits 10.1.2

SUPPLEMENT TO SUBSIDIARY GUARANTY
Reference is hereby made to the Amended and Restated Subsidiary Guaranty (as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Guaranty”) made as of January 2, 2020, by each of the Material Domestic Subsidiaries of Arcosa, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”) listed on the signature pages thereto (each, an “Initial Guarantor” and together with any additional Subsidiaries of the Borrower, which become parties thereto and together with the undersigned, the “Guarantors”) in favor of the Administrative Agent, for the ratable benefit of the Holders of Guaranteed Obligations, under the Credit Agreement.  Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Guaranty.  By its execution below, the undersigned Arcosa Aggregates Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “New Guarantor”), agrees to become, and does hereby become, a Guarantor under the Guaranty and agrees to be bound by such Guaranty as if originally a party thereto.  By its execution below, the undersigned represents and warrants as to itself that all of the representations and warranties contained in Section 2 of the Guaranty are true and correct in all respects as of the date hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, New Guarantor has executed and delivered this Annex I counterpart to the Guaranty as of this 26th day of April, 2022.
ARCOSA AGGREGATES HOLDINGS, LLC 


						
	By: /s/ Gail M. Peck

	

	Name: Gail M. Peck
Title:   Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2540 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2540

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic 
 acid, 5-[[4-chloro-6-[(3-sulfophenyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-
4-hydroxy-3-[[4-[[2-(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo]-, sodium salt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

   Mr. Burr introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic 
 acid, 5-[[4-chloro-6-[(3-sulfophenyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-
4-hydroxy-3-[[4-[[2-(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo]-, sodium salt.

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

SECTION 1. 2,7-NAPHTHALENEDISULFONIC ACID, 5-[[4-CHLORO-6-[(3-
              SULFOPHENYL)AMINO]-1,3,5-TRIAZIN-2-YL]AMINO]-4-HYDROXY-3-
              [[4-[[2-(SULFOOXY)ETHYL]SULFONYL]PHENYL]AZO]-, SODIUM 
              SALT.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.99 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic 
acid, 5-[[4-chloro-6-[(3-sulfophenyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-
4-hydroxy-3-[[4-[[2-(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo]-, sodium salt) 
is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[934 NE2d 879, 908 NYS2d 146]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Isham Moore, Appellant.

Decided September 2, 2010

*813APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Appellate Advocates,*New York City *(De Nice Powell*and *Lynn W.L. Fahey*of counsel), for appellant.

*Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney,*Brooklyn *(Solomon Neubort*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant Isham Moore failed to establish that his attorney provided ineffective assistance because of her failure to request a justification charge. There are sound strategic reasons for counsel’s decision not to request such a charge. And even if this were not the case, defendant cannot show that he was entitled to a justification charge under any favorable interpretation of the testimony presented at trial.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
#### In the Matter of Kevin Weems, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Decided November 30, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601).
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 6, 2014 105532 

105533

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID P. TERRY,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 7, 2014

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________

Dean C. Schneller, Plattsburgh, for appellant.

Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas

J. Evanovich of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Clark, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton

County (McGill, J.), rendered November 8, 2012, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of forgery in the

second degree (six counts), criminal possession of a forged

instrument in the second degree (six counts), grand larceny in

the third degree (three counts) and grand larceny in the fourth

degree (three counts).

In satisfaction of two indictments charging him with

numerous crimes, defendant pleaded guilty to forgery in the

second degree (six counts), criminal possession of a forged

instrument in the second degree (six counts), grand larceny in

the third degree (three counts) and grand larceny in the fourth
-2- 105532

105533 

degree (three counts) and agreed to waive his right to appeal. 

He was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, to an

aggregate prison term of 12 to 24 years. Defendant now appeals. 

We affirm. Initially, upon reviewing the record, including

the plea colloquy and written waiver of appeal, we find that

defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. He was

not advised that the right to appeal is separate and distinct

from the other rights that he was forfeiting by his guilty plea

(see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Patterson,

119 AD3d 1157, 1158 [2014]; People v Bressard, 112 AD3d 988, 988

[2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1137 [2014]). Defendant's claim that

he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is unpreserved

for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an

appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Vandemark, 117

AD3d 1339, 1340 [2014], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Sept. 30, 2014];

People v Trombley, 115 AD3d 1114, 1114 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d

1068 [2014]). Further, while defendant's contention that his

sentence is harsh and excessive is properly before us, we find no

extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a

reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People

v Miller, 113 AD3d 935, 936 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1201

[2014]; People v Butler, 111 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2013], lv denied 23

NY3d 961 [2014]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-19-00183-CV

Style: Prentis B. Tomlinson, Jr.

v. John Khoury

Date motion filed: October 1, 2020

Type of motion: Unopposed Motion to Postpone Oral Argument

Party filing motion: Appellee

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

Appellee has filed an Unopposed Motion to Postpone Oral Argument due to a 

scheduling conflict. The Court grants the motion and, after conferring with counsel for 

the parties, withdraws this case from submission and oral argument on October 27, 

2020, and resets this case for submission and oral argument via Zoom on October 21, 

2020 at 1:30 p.m. 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Adams

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 6, 2020
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01




               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We have issued our report dated March 12, 2004 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of Nematron Corporation and Subsidiaries appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003. We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of the Company on
Forms S-3 (Registration No.'s 333-1314, 333-15959) and Forms S-8 (Registration
No.'s 333-1136, 333-1138, and 333-12379) of the aforementioned report.



/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
Southfield, Michigan
March 12, 2004
PAY.GOV: FINGERPRINT E-PAYMENT PROCESS INSTRUCTIONS

The National Indian Gaming Commission Fingerprint Payment Form is a PUBLIC FORM. Public forms are freely available 

to everyone. It is not necessary to self-enroll to make a payment using a public form. However, by self-enrolling and 

creating an account with Pay.gov, you can:

- See the payments you have made since you created an account

- Store payment information so you do not have to re-enter it

- Copy a form you already submitted the next time you need to make a payment

If you would like to have a record of the payments that you submit online, you should register and create an account.

1. Go to www.pay.gov, and then click on the “Find an Agency” tab. Select “N” and then “National Indian Gaming

Commission”. Click on “Continue” Under the “Fingerprint Payment Form” section. You may create an account

if you prefer, or click on “Continue to the Form” to reach the “NIGC Fingerprint Form”.

2. Enter the information as indicated. Certain fields are mandatory, the form will not process if you do not 

provide complete and correct information.

a. If you are ready to pay an invoice, click on the “Check here to pay an invoice” box. You may pay up to 

eight invoices by clicking on “Add Another”.

b. If you wish to make a prepayment, you can enter the amount in the “Prepaid Amount” box. The 

“Amount due to the National Indian Gaming Commission” field has a built-in formula to perform the 

necessary calculation. 

3. The form calls for an NIGC-ID number. You can find this number on your monthly invoices and statements. If 

you are not sure what your NIGC-ID is, please contact us.

4. Once you complete the form, click “Continue” to go to the next step in the payment process where you will

need to provide your bank information as requested.

5. If you have questions related to the form, please email them to fingerprint_billing@nigc.gov. If you have 

payment-related questions, please contact pay.gov Customer Service by phone at (800) 624-1373, option 2, 

or via email at pay.gov.clev@clev.frb.org.
No. 865.

#### W. D. Haden Co. *v.*Mathieson Alkali Works, Inc.

February 9, 1942.

*Messrs. Robert S. Blair, Daniel L. Morris,*and *Paul A. Blair*for petitioner. *Messrs. Raymond F. Adams*and *E. Howard McCaleb*for respondent.

Petition for writ of cer-

tiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2011

t0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

142786

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142786 COA: 293134 Oscoda CC: 08-001021-FC RICHARD ANDREW CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### ZHONG LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70449.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2009.*

Filed April 29, 2009.

Zhong Li, Alhambra, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Terri Jane Scadron, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Zhong Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings to reissue its August 3, 2005 order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *Perez v. Mukasey,*516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

As a preliminary matter, we reject the respondent’s contention that Li has waived *537challenge to the denial of his motion to reopen. *See Alcaraz v. INS,*384 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir.2004) (“[W]e may review an issue ... if the failure to raise the issue properly did not prejudice the defense of the opposing party.”) (quotation and citation omitted).

The BIA abused its discretion by failing to specifically address Li’s allegation that he did not receive notice of the BIA’s August 3, 2005 order. *See Singh v. Gonzales,*494 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir.2007) (presumption of proper mailing may be overcome by evidence of non-receipt by petitioner or counsel). We remand for the BIA to address Li’s allegation of non-receipt in the first instance and determine whether it is sufficient to overcome the presumption of mailing. *See id.*

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                                
                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the use of our report dated February 16, 1999, included in the 
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year ended 
December 31, 1998, with respect to the financial statements, as amended, 
included in this Form 10-K/A.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (No. 333-07135 and No. 333-28991) pertaining to the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the 1996 Stock Option Plan and the 401(k) Salary Reduction Plan
and Trust of Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated February 16,
1999, with respect to the financial statements of Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., as amended, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year
ended December 31, 1998.


  /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Denver, Colorado
May 7, 1999
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Perez, Appellant, v Robert Ercole, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted September 20, 2010;

decided November 23, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Annual Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year
ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), we, Norman F. Swanton and Timothy A. Larkin, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer and Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, respectively, of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

(1)   The
report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

March 2,
2011

/s/ NORMAN F. SWANTON Norman F. Swanton Chairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ TIMOTHY A. LARKIN Timothy A. Larkin Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer


---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Howard Kaminsky, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sport Chalet, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols 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 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: June 21, 2004 /s/ Howard Kaminsky   Howard Kaminsky, Chief Financial Officer
50