alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-86494) of American Locker Group, Inc.
1999 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated March 18, 2005, May 12, 2005 and August 31, 2007 with respect to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of
American Locker Group Incorporated included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/
Schneider Downs & Co., Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
August 31, 2007

---
The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3613

___________

Steven G. Smith, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Arkansas.

Matthew S. Stedelin, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant, *

*

Hogan Motor Leasing, Inc., *

*

Defendant/Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 23, 1997

Filed: June 6, 1997

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steven Smith won a judgment against Hogan Motor Leasing, Inc. for damages

arising from an traffic accident. During deliberations, the jury sent two questions to the

district court. After conferring with counsel, the court responded with a supplemental 1
-2-

jury instruction. Hogan's appeal is based on a challenge to that instruction. We have

reviewed the evidence and the jury instructions and conclude that the district court

acted within its discretion in giving the supplemental instruction. The judgment is

affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Omar Paredes ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-70836.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*785Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 21, 2006.

Peter L. Ashman, Esq., Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.

NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John S. Hogan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Omar Paredes Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new evidence of hardship to his United States citizen son. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence Paredes Espinoza submitted with his motion to reopen would not alter its prior discretionary determination that he failed to establish the requisite hardship. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where “the only question presented is whether the new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.”) (Internal quotations omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

*'**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Norman Jenkins Appellant, v Rikers Island Correctional Facility Warden et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 915]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated decision and order) of the Supreme Court, Orleans County (James P Punch, A.J.), dated August 9, 2012 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

*1351Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner contends that the actions of the Parole Board violated his right to due process. While this appeal was pending, however, petitioner was released to parole supervision, and thus this appeal has been rendered moot *(see People ex rel. Briecke v New York State Dept. of Corr. Servs.,*107 AD3d 1459, 1459 [2013]; *People ex rel. Moore v Lempke,*101 AD3d 1665, 1665-1666 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 863 [2013]). Although petitioner contends otherwise, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply because, inter alia, the issue he raises on appeal is not likely to recur *(see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present— Scudder, PJ., Smith, Peradotto, Bindley and Sconiers, JJ.
97-665.

#### McKinney v. Schlatter.

Butler App. No. CA96-05-100. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and cross-appeal. Upon consideration of appellees/cross-appellants’ application for dismissal of their appeal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal of the cross-appeal be, and hereby is, granted.

The appeal of Linda J. McKinney et al. remains pending.
#### Larry LINVILLE; Myron Holland, Appellants, v. CONAGRA, INC., doing business as ConAgra Frozen Foods, Inc.; Jim Nesbitt, Appellees.

No. 04-2957.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2006.

Filed: June 26, 2006.

David Armstrong Hodges, Little Rock, ÁR, Mitch Cash, Marshall, AR, for Appellants.

Gordon Smeade Rather, Jr., Michelle Marie Kaemmerling, Wright *&*Lindsey, Little Rock, AR, Clayton E. Bailey, Baker *&*McKenzie, Dallas, TX, for Appellees.

*705Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Larry Linville and Myron Holland (plaintiffs) appeal from the district court’s1 order compelling arbitration. They also appeal the dismissal of defendant Jim Nesbitt, which was certified as a final order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). We conclude that the district court properly compelled arbitration and properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against Nesbitt for the reasons discussed by the court. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Union Security Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stacia N. Almquist, Treasurer and 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, based on 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: August 4, 2008



/s/ Stacia N. AlmquistStacia N. AlmquistTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 10(iii).5**

**BALDOR ELECTRIC COMPANY**

**BONUS PLAN**

**FOR OFFICERS AND KEY MANAGERS**

**Plan Administration**

The Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Company has sole responsibility for adopting,reviewing and revising the Company’s Bonus Plan (“Plan”) and all its provisions. 

**Plan Participants**

Participants are Officers and Key Managers of the Company as approved by the Board annually. Participation in the Plan does not constitute a guarantee ofemployment and incentive awards for Plan participants whose employment is terminated for any reason shall forfeit their rights to any bonus payment. Participants who retire or go on disability during the Plan year will not normally receive aprorated bonus payment. 

**Bonus Payment Date**

The bonus will be paid in a lump sum as soon as practical after the Company’s financial results for the applicable year have been certified by the external auditors. 

**Bonus Formula**

Bonus amounts, as apercentage of base compensation, are earned by the participants based upon achieving target and stretch goals for two independent components – net sales and net earnings. Fifty percent (50%) of the bonus amount earned is based on achievingpre-set net sales goals and fifty percent (50%) of the bonus amount earned is based on achieving pre-set net earnings goals. The specific goals of the Plan will be determined on an annual basis by the Board. 

**Component 1 – Net Sales**

For net salesbelow target, 0% bonus is earned. For net sales at or above target, the bonus amount will be earned on a pro-rata basis. 

**Component 2– Net Earnings**

For net earnings below target, 0% bonus is earned. For net earnings at or above target, the bonus amount will beearned on a pro-rata basis, except that that the Board has the discretion to cap the bonus amount earned.
#### Elizabeth Gonzalez, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

Submitted April 1, 2013;

decided May 30, 2013

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*20 NY3d 859 (2013)].

Judges Rivera and Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
97-58.

#### State ex rel. Jackson v. Wingard.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-86494) of American Locker Group, Inc. 1999 Stock
Incentive Plan of our report dated March 18, 2005 and May 12, 2005 (which
reports an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph as a result
of circumstances raising substantial doubt about the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern), with respect to the financial statements and
financial statement schedule of American Locker Group Incorporated included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.


/s/ Schneider Downs & Co., Inc.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
July 25, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(a)





                         [NORWEST BANKS LETTERHEAD]





August 30, 1996



Mr. Michael M. Logan, Vice President
Corporate Development/Natural Gas Marketing
Columbus Energy Corp.
Suite 2400 Lincoln Center Building
Denver, CO  80246

RE:  Seventh Amendment to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
     Between Columbus Energy Corp. and Norwest Bank Colorado N.A., Denver
     dated July 1, 1992 ("Agreement")

Dear Mike:

I am pleased to advise that Norwest Bank has approved the proposed amendments
to the credit agreement requested in your letter of August 23, 1996.  We are
contacting David Stolfa and requesting him to proceed with the Seventh
Amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement, To wit:

(1)  Revolving Period, Section 1.1, Page 8 - the termination of the Revolving
     Period will be extended from 7/1/97 to 7/1/99.

(2)  Maturity Date, Section 1.1, Page 7 - The maturity of the term loan will
     now be 7/1/2003.

(3)  LIBOR Interest Rate, Paragraph 4, Page 1 of the Note will be changed to
     reflect LIBOR plus 150 basis points.

(4)  The Agreement will be changed to reflect only one formal Borrowing Base
     review date annually.  The date will be April 1st and the calculation will
     be based on an outside engineering report effective November 1st of the
     prior year.  Borrower or Bank shall have the right to request on
     additional redetermination annually.  The Bank has already begun its
     semiannually determination for October 1st of this year and wishes to
     complete that under the provisions of the existing agreement.  Borrower
     will continue to supply the Bank with all of the reporting information
     required in the existing agreement and Bank will perform and informal
     review semiannually.

Sincerely,

/s/ J. T. REAGAN

J. T. Reagan
Vice President
Energy and Minerals
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6636** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. WAYNE DONTA O'NEIL, a/k/a Wayne

- Wayne , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:06

- cr - 00022

- RLV

- CH

- 5; 5:11

- cv 00160

- RLV )

Submitted : January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.

Wa y ne Donta O’Neil, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Donta O’Neil seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the deni al of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitu tional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85.

* In the district court, O’Neil argued for an alternate construction of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), coram nobis, and/or audi t a querela. He has waived any further consideration of these arguments by failing , on appeal, to challenge the district court’s reasoning for rejecting these alternate constructions.3 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that O’Neil has not made the requisite showing. Acc ordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ

AND EDITH ROMAN,

 Relator.

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-14-00315-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator=s motion for emergency relief and 

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against the Honorable Thomas Spieczny, Judge of the 

County Court at Law No. 7, El Paso, Texas, and concludes that Relator=s motion for emergency 

relief and Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for emergency relief, in accordance with the 

opinion of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27789-27790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13731]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8917-4]


Notice of Open Meeting of the Environmental Financial Advisory 
Board (EFAB)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will hold an open meeting 
on August 10-11, 2009. EFAB is an EPA advisory committee

[[Page 27790]]

chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to provide 
advice and recommendations to EPA on creative approaches to funding 
environmental programs, projects, and activities.
    A meeting of the full board will be held to discuss progress with 
work products under EFAB's current Strategic Action Agenda and develop 
an action agenda to direct the Board's ongoing and new activities 
through FY 2010.
    Environmental Finance topics expected to be discussed include: 
Financial Assurance Mechanisms (Commercial Insurance & Cost 
Estimation); Financial Assurance and CO2 Underground Injection Control/
Carbon Capture and Sequestration; Water Loss Reduction (``Leaky 
Pipes''); Innovative Financing Tools, and State Revolving Fund 
Investment Options.
    This meeting is open to the public, however, seating is limited. 
All members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register 
in advance, no later than Monday, July 27, 2009.

DATES: Full Board Meeting is scheduled for August 10, 2009 from 1 p.m.-
5 p.m. and August 11, 2009 from 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Omni San Francisco Hotel, 500 California Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94104.
    Registration and Information Contact: To register for this meeting 
or get further information, please contact Sandra Keys, U.S. EPA, at 
(202) 564-4999 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9d2dcc0ca97cad8d7ddcbd8f9dcc9d897ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6209071b114c11030c061003220712034c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>. For information on access or 
services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Sandra Keys. 
To request accommodations for a disability, contact Sandra Keys at 
least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible 
to process your request.

    Dated: June 4, 2009.
Joshua Baylson,
Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-13731 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Virgil H. LANGLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond W. BROWN; Carioca Company; Albert E. Van Wagner, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-16460.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 31, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2006.

Virgil H. Langley, Henderson, NV, pro se.

Robert R. Berk, Esq., Jones Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, Richard A. Segal, Esq., Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C., Gary L. Birnbaum, Esq., Kelly W. Lewis, Esq., Mariscal Weeks McIntyre & Friedlander, PA, Albert E. Van Wagner, Jr., Van Wagnr Erharet & Hubbard LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: FARRIS, BOOCHEVER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Virgil Langley appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of his former attorney, Raymond Brown, Carioca Company (Carioca), and Carioca’s attorney, Albert Van Wagner, in Langley’s diversity action. Langley also appeals the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Carioca and Van Wagner. We have juris*598diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and, after de novo review, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Carioca, Van Wagner and Brown. We reverse the attorneys’ fees awards.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment against Langley on his claims for abuse of process brought against Carioca and Van Wagner. Langley failed to submit evidence of specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue whether Van Wagner or Carioca had “an ulterior purpose and [committed] a willful act in the use of judicial process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” *Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce,*195 Ariz. 358, 988 P.2d 143, 146 (1999).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment against Langley on his claim for attorney malpractice. Langley failed to submit evidence of specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue whether Brown had committed malpractice during his representation of Langley. *See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

The district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees under Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 12-349. Because the attorneys’ fee awards were based on Langley’s misconduct in the district court proceeding the district court erred “when it relied upon an Arizona statute ... if sanctions were to be imposed at all, it had to be under the policies and procedures delineated under federal law.” *In re: Larry’s Apartment, LLC,*249 F.3d 832, 838 (9th Cir.2001). Therefore, we reverse the fee awards and remand for consideration whether fees should be awarded under federal law.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 101 (Thursday, May 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12426]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Notice of Cancellation of Customs Broker License Due to Death of 
the License Holder

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: General notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Title 19 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations at section 111.51(a), the following individual 
Customs broker licenses and any and all permits have been cancelled due 
to the death of the broker:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        License
                 Name                     No.            Port name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William C. Cain......................      03126  Laredo.
Robert W. Dugan......................      11731  New York.
Rasa Szepelak........................      14316  Chicago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: May 20, 2009.
Daniel Baldwin,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. E9-12426 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P