alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re PRESIDENT CASINOS, INC., Debtor, Mary Zegeer, Appellant, v. President Casinos, Inc., Appellee.

No. 10-2325.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 3, 2010.

Filed: Nov. 5, 2010.

Mary Zegeer, Pittsburg, PA, pro se.

Mark V. Bossi, Brian Hockett, Cheryl A. Kelly, David A. Lander, Thompson *&*Co-burn, William A. Brasher, Brasher Law Firm, St. Louis, MO, Robert Woods Phillips, Simmons *&*Cooper, E. Alton, IL, for Appellee.

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mary Zegeer appeals the district court’s1 affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s2 order confirming the plan of liquidation for President Casinos, Inc. Following careful de novo review, *see In re Reynolds,*425 F.3d 526, 531 (8th Cir.2005), we agree with the district court that Zegeer’s appeal was equitably moot: the plan has been substantially consummated; Zegeer did not seek a stay; the relief requested *32would negatively affect the rights of parties not before the court and the success of the plan; and public policy weighs in favor of mootness. *See In re Williams,*256 B.R. 885, 896 (8th Cir.BAP 2001) (factors considered in determining equitable mootness). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. The Honorable Kathy A. Surratt-States, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
##### 






Exhibit 32







Section 1350 Certification







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nextel
Communications, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Timothy M. Donahue,
President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) that, to the best of my
knowledge:







(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and







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







Date: March 14, 2005




| |                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | /s/ TIMOTHY M. DONAHUE                                          
|
|
| | _______________________________________ 
     Timothy M. Donahue
|
|
| | Chief Executive Officer                                         
|



---



##### 






Section 1350 Certification







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nextel
Communications, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Paul N. Saleh, Vice
President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
that, to the best of my knowledge:







(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and







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







Date: March 14, 2005




| |                                                            
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
|
| | /s/ PAUL N. SALEH                                          
|
|
| | _______________________________________ 
     Paul N. Saleh
|
|
| | Chief Financial Officer                                    
|
##### 



Exhibit 10.4
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE
CHS INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
  1. Section 4.3 of the Plan is amended to read in full as follows:
 Savings Plan Account
 2. Section 4.5 of the Plan is amended by the addition of the following new paragraph (d):
 Surviving Spouse Benefit of Former CEO
 3. Section 4.6 of the Plan is amended to read in full as follows:
 Time and Form of Participants Benefit
 4. Section 4.7 of the Plan is deleted without replacement.
 5. Sections 5.1(a) and (b) of the Plan is amended to read as follows:




---



##### 



Death Benefit for Beneficiary
 Payment of Benefit
 6. Section 5.1(d) is deleted without replacement.
 7. The introductory paragraph to Section 5.2(b) is amended to read as follows:
 Surviving Spouse Benefit
 8. Section 5.2(e) is amended to read as follows:
 Payment of Benefit
 9. Article VI of the Plan is deleted without replacement.
  CHS INC.By
    
    /s/ John D. JohnsonIts
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
 -2-
#### BORO HALL CORPORATION v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al.

Civil Action No. 5592.

District Court, E. D. New York.

March 19, 1947.

For former opinion, see 68 F.Supp. 589.

Harry J. McDermott, of Brooklyn, for plaintiff.

John Thomas Smith, of New York City (Edward B. Wallace and Gordon H. Brown, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

BYERS, District Judge.

For all purposes this motion is deemed to have been submitted on February 13, 1947, although the papers were actually received on submission on March 12th.

The notice states that the plaintiff moves for reargument of a motion for summary judgment on behalf of defendants which was decided November 1, 1946, D.C., 68 F.Supp. 589, as embodied in an order dated November 12, 1946.

Judgment to that effect was granted December 9, 1946.

Also this motion is to vacate that judgment, and for an order denying the motion, and for leave to amend the complaint.

It is obvious that the judgment must be vacated if the plaintiff is to have any relief, and since what is sought is a rehearing under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 59(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the last day upon which it could have been filed was December 19, 1946, some 56 days before the filing date.

For reasons discussed in Safeway Stores, Inc., v. Coe, May 1943, 78 U.S.App.D.C 19, 136 F.2d 771, 148 A.L.R. 782, and Jusino et al. v. Morales & Tio, 1 Cir., Jan., 1944, 139 F.2d 946, the motion is not timely and the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain it

*540The amendments to the Rules as adopted by the Supreme Court on December 27, 1946, made no change in 59(a), nor does' the Report of the Advisory Committee (June, 1946), 5 F.R.D. 433, at page 437 et. seq., contain a note to the’ effect that either of the foregoing decisions called for alteration in that rule.

While the motion is dismissed upon the ground indicated,’it may be proper to add that the lengthy affidavit and the brief filed in behalf of the motion have been examined with care, and if a disposition were appropriate upon the merits, the motion would be denied for the reason (to adopt the language of Judge Hincks in Nachod & United States Signal Co., Inc., et al. v. Automatic Signal Corporation et al., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 418) that I must “relegate (the plaintiff) to their (its) right of appeal”.

Settle order dismissing motion for lack of power to entertain.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juken Washington GORDON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7229.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 7, 2006.

*229Juken Washington Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Juken Washington Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, construing Gordon’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b) motion as a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and then dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gordon has not made the requisite showing. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

Finally, in accordance with *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003), we construe Gordon’s notice of appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), to file a successive habeas corpus motion. To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion, a movant must show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral re*230view by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2) relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Gordon has not satisfied either standard.

Accordingly, we deny Gordon’s implicit application for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion for appointment of counsel, 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.*
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
33-51085, 33-57822, 333-58445 and 333-94277 of Arizona Public Service Company on
Form S-3 and in Registration  Statement No.  333-46161 of Arizona Public Service
Company on Form S-8 of our report dated  February  18,  2000,  appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arizona Public Service  Company for the year ended
December 31, 1999.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Phoenix, Arizona

March 29, 2000
Exhibit
23
 
 
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-116284 of Appalachian Power Company on Form S-3 of our reports dated
February 28, 2005 (which reports express unqualified opinions and include an
explanatory paragraph concerning the adoption of new accounting pronouncements
in 2003 and 2004) relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedules of Appalachian Power Company appearing in and incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Appalachian Power Company for the
year ended December 31, 2004.
  
 /s/
Deloitte & Touche, LLP
 
 Columbus,
Ohio
 March 1,
2005
*Thursday, May 15, 1997*

RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

96-2623.

#### Rupert v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Wood App. No. WD-95-103. On May 5,1997, appellee/cross-appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, filed a document titled “Motion to have this matter reviewed by a full court including a replacement for Justice Resnick who has recused herself from consideration of this matter.” Appellee/cross-appellant’s motion is, in substance, a motion *for*reconsideration of this court’s decision on a previously filed motion for reconsideration, and as such, is not permitted by S.Ct.Prac.R. XI(2)(C). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that appellee/cross-appellant’s motion be, and hereby is, stricken.

Resnick, J., not participating.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3309 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rate of tax 

for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 5, 2010 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the rate of tax for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 

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 ‘‘Oil Spill Liability 

5 Trust Fund Improvement Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RATE OF TAX FOR OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST 

7 FUND. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4611 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to the imposition of tax) is 

10 amended— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3309 IS

1 (1) in subsection (c)— 

2 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking subpara3 graph (B) and inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘(B) except as provided in paragraph (3), 

5 the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund financing 

6 rate is 9 cents a barrel.’’; and 

7 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

8 paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(3) TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF OIL SPILL LI10 ABILITY TRUST FUND FINANCING RATE.—In the 

11 case of any calendar quarter in which the Secretary 

12 estimates that, as of the close of the previous quar13 ter, the unobligated balance in the Oil Spill Liability 

14 Trust Fund is greater than $10,000,000,000, the 

15 Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund financing rate is 0 

16 cents a barrel.’’; and 

17 (2) by striking subsection (f). 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply on and after the first day of the 

20 first calendar quarter after the date of enactment of this 

21 Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
II 

Calendar No. 400 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3066 

To correct the application of the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act of 2009 (5 U.S.C. 5304 note) to employees paid saved or 

retained rates. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 3, 2010 

Mr. AKAKA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

MAY 24, 2010 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To correct the application of the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act of 2009 (5 U.S.C. 5304 

note) to employees paid saved or retained rates. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES PAID 

4 SAVED OR RETAINED RATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1918(a)(3) of the Non6 Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act of 2009 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3066 RS

1 (5 U.S.C. 5304 note) is amended by striking ‘‘January 

2 1, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2010’’. 

3 (b) INTERIM PAY ADJUSTMENTS.— 

4 (1) ADJUSTMENTS.— 

5 (A) IN GENERAL.—Until the Director of 

6 the Office of Personnel Management prescribes 

7 regulations in accordance with the amendment 

8 made by subsection (a), for employees receiving 

9 a cost-of-living allowance under section 5941 of 

10 title 5, United States Code, and a retained rate 

11 under section 5363 of that title, agencies 

12 shall— 

13 (i) calculate the adjustment under sec14 tion 5363(b)(2)(B) of that title based on a 

15 maximum rate of basic pay, excluding any 

16 locality-based comparability payment; and 

17 (ii) provide an additional adjustment 

18 reflecting the full increase in the locality19 based comparability payment that would 

20 apply to the employee but for receipt of a 

21 retained rate. 

22 (B) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 30 days 

23 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Di24 rector of the Office of Personnel Management 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3066 RS

1 shall issue guidance for carrying out paragraph 

2 (1). 

3 (C) OTHER PAY SYSTEMS.—For employees 

4 in another pay system that receive a retained 

5 rate equivalent to a retained rate under section 

6 5363 of title 5, United States Code, equivalent 

7 treatment shall be provided, consistent with sec8 tion 1918(b) of the Non-Foreign Area Retire9 ment Equity Assurance Act of 2009. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 400 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3066 

A BILL 

To correct the application of the Non-Foreign Area 

tained rates. U.S.C. 5304 note) to employees paid saved or reRetirement Equity Assurance Act of 2009 (5 

MAY 24, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 15**
LETTER IN LIEU OF CONSENT FOR REVIEW REPORT
March 14, 2005
Nextel Communications, Inc.2001 Edmund Halley DriveReston, Virginia
We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Nextel Communications,Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the periods endedSeptember 30, 2004 and 2003, as indicatedin our report dated November 5, 2004, (March 14, 2005, as to the effects of the restatement discussed inNote 1); because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.
We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, is incorporated by reference in Post-Effective AmendmentNo. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-91716 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel Communications,Inc., Registration Statement No. 333-06521 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8,Registration Statement No. 333-06523 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-26369 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of NextelCommunications, Inc., Registration Statement No. 333-42537 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on FormS-8, Registration Statement and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No.333-53429 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement 333-1290 of NextelCommunications, Inc. on Form S-4, Registration Statement No. 333-104076 of Nextel Communications,Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-113003 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8,and Registration Statement No. 333-116123 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8.
We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Actof 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by anaccountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and11 of that Act.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
McLean, VA
97-487.

#### State ex rel. Enoch v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus or alternate petition for habeas corpus. On April 1,1997, respondent filed a document titled “Motion to Supplement the Record” with an attached document titled “Certification of Record.” Respondent seeks to supplement its earlier filed motion to dismiss with the certification of record.

Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. VIII(7) requires that any additions to a previously filed document must be filed within the time permitted for filing the original document, and respondent’s original document was due March 31, 1997, and S.Ct.Prac.R. VIII(7) prescribes that the Clerk shall refuse to file a revised document that is not submitted within the deadlines prescribed by the rules,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that respondent’s motion to supplement the record be, and hereby is, stricken.
Exhibit 10.19


 


Facility License Agreement (Free of Rent)


 


Party A (provider): Inner Mongolia YanGuFang Ecological Agriculture
Technology (Group) Co., Ltd.


 


Party B (user): Inner Mongolia YanGuFang Whole Grain Industry Development
Co., Ltd.


 


According to the “Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China”
and relevant laws and regulations, with the consent of the lessor, Party A and Party B shall, on an equal and voluntary basis, provide
Party A with the leased facility for free use by Party B. After friendly negotiation, we have reached the following agreement:


 


1. The basic information of Facility


 


Workshop 1, in the northwest corner of the courtyard of MengGeLai Food Co., Ltd.in the Golden Triangle of Wuchuan County, free of
charge. The area of the leased workshop is approximately 2232 square meters, and the purpose: grain processing.


 


2. Term of use


 


The term of use is 12 years, from May 16, 2015 to March 27, 2027


 


3. Party A’s rights and obligations


 


3.1 During the period of use, Party B shall properly keep the facility,
use it in accordance with the agreed purpose, and shall not engage in illegal activities, otherwise Party A may terminate this agreement
at any time.


 


3.2 If there is a quality problem of the facility during the use period,
which affects the normal use of Party B, Party A shall repair it in time.


 


4. Party B’s rights and obligations


 


4.1 Party B undertakes to Party A that the use of the workshop is only
for the legal production and business activities of Party B’s company. Upon expiration of the use period, Party A has the right to take
it back, and Party B shall return it as scheduled.


 


4.2 During the use period, the water, heating, electric hot water,
communication, outdoor sanitation, facility repair, greening maintenance, etc. used by Party B shall be managed by Party A in a unified
manner, and the expenses incurred shall be borne by Party B.


 


5. Termination of the agreement


 


5.1 During the period of use, if Party A leases the facility used by
Party B to a third party, it shall notify Party B in writing 30 days in advance.


 


5.2 During the period of use, Party A may terminate this agreement
at any time, but it shall notify Party B in writing 30 days in advance.


 


6. Dispute Resolution


 


If there is a dispute between the two
parties during the implementation of this agreement, they should first resolve it through friendly negotiation.


 




     


     


    

 


7. Miscellaneous


 


7.1 This agreement is in duplicate, with two pages in total, with each
party holding one copy.


 


7.2 This agreement will take effect after both parties sign and seal
it. For matters not covered in this contract, both parties will sign a supplementary agreement.


 


Party A: Inner Mongolia YanGuFang Ecological
Agriculture Technology (Group) Co., Ltd. (Seal)


Rrepresentative: (Signature)


Date:


 


Party B: Inner Mongolia YanGuFang Whole
Grain Industry Development Co., Ltd. (Seal)


Representative: (Signature)


Date: