alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 01-20014

Summary Calendar

EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

VERSUS

LJM SERVICES INC; ET AL,

Defendants

LJM SERVICES INC

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Houston

(H-99-CV-3602)

July 11, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

LJM Services, Inc. (“LJM”), appeals the grant of summary

judgment in favor of Ev erest National Insurance Company

(“Everest”). Everest had filed an action for declaratory judgmentNo. 01-20014 --2–

to determine it s rights with respect to workers compensation

insurance. The district court held, i nter alia

, that an agent who

solicited business for Everest and wrote the policies through

Everest’s master general agent lacked the apparent authority to add

LJM as an additional insured.

The grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, applying

the same standard as the district court. P ratt v. City of Houston,

Texas , 247 F.3d 601, 605-606 (5 th Cir. 2001).

Apparent authority in Texas is based on

estoppel. It may arise either from a

principal knowingly permitting an agent to

hold herself out as hav ing authority or by a

principal’s actions which lack such ordinary

care as to clothe an agent with the indicia of

authority, thus leading a reasonably prudent

person to b elieve that the agent has the

au thority she purports to exercise . . . A

prerequisite to a proper finding of apparent

authority is evidence of conduct by the

principal relied upon by the party asserting

the estoppel defense which would lead a

reasonably prudent person to believe an agent

had authority to so act.

Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sam pson , 969 S.W.2d 945, 949No. 01-20014 --3–

(Tex. 1998) (quoting Ames v. Great S. B ank , 672 S.W.2d 447, 450

(Tex. 1984)). “It is also the rule that apparent authority is not

available where the other contr acting party has notice of the

limitations of the agent’s power.” G .D. Douglass v. Panama, Inc.
,

504 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. 1974). Certificates issued by the agent

speci fically stated that they did not amend, extend or alter

coverage and that they were for information only and not to confer

any rights. See also Granite Constr. Co. v. Bituminous Ins. Co.

,

832 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tex.App.–Amarillo, 1992). LJM also had notice

of the ag ent’s limitations, s ee Douglass

, 504 S.W.2d at 779.

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of COMFORCE Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006 as to which this Certification is
an exhibit 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Signed March 28, 2007.                              
|                                                    
|/ /s/ Harry V. Maccarrone                           
|Harry V. Maccarrone,                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GULF
EXPLORATION CONSULTANTS, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,019
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,019
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,019
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,911
<OTHER-SE>                                    (61,672)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         11,741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,741
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                457,274
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            457,274
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   457,274
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6459

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIE EDWARD BARNES, a/k/a Big Will, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, 

at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00064-GMG-RWT-1) 

Submitted: September 26, 2017 Decided: September 28, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Edward Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Willie Edward Barnes seeks to appeal from the district court’s order construing his 

petition for a writ of audita querela as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to vacate and 

dismissing the motion as untimely. We conclude that Barnes’ motion was in substance a 

successive § 2255 motion. 

The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 constitutional 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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnes has not 

made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to deny § 2255 relief 

on the merits because Barnes’ motion challenged the validity of his sentence and should 

have been construed as a successive § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 

524, 531–32 (2005); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). 
3

In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). 

Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27528-27529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1207-000]

P.H. Glatfelter Company; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

June 3, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
P.H. Glatfelter Company's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is June 23, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to any subscribed docket(s). For assistance 
with any FERC

[[Page 27529]]

Online service, please e-mail [email protected]. or call (866) 
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13539 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 23







            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Baldor Electric Company and affiliates of our report dated January 31, 1997,
included in the 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of Baldor Electric Company
and affiliates.   

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Baldor Electric
Company and affiliates listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the 
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedule 
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the 
information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8, No. 2-77046) pertaining to the Baldor Electric Company 1982 Incentive
Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8, No. 33-16766) pertaining to the Baldor Electric
Company 1987 Incentive Stock Plan, (Form S-8, No. 33-28239) pertaining to the
Baldor Electric Company Employee Savings Plan, (Form S-8, No. 33-36421)
pertaining to the Baldor Electric Company 1989 Stock Option Plan for Non-
Employee Directors and (Forms S-8, No. 33-59281 and No. 33-60731) pertaining
to the Baldor Electric Company 1994 Incentive Stock Plan of our report dated 
January 31, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the proceeding 
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedules included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Baldor Electric Company and affiliates.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
---------------------

Little Rock, Arkansas
March 27, 1997
For Immediate Release Contact: Shawn Pensoneau 

 (202) 632-7003 

NIGC Announces Tribal Consultation set for Oklahoma

Washington, DC, December 20, 2010 — The National Indian Gaming 

Commission (Commission) has announced a government-to-government 

consultation to be held January 18, 2011, at the Riverwind Casino in Norman, 

Oklahoma. 

“The Commission places a high priority on consultation. We are eager to engage 

in a meaningful dialogue with tribes as we begin to consider the relevance of the 

Commission’s current regulations for today’s industry and what can be done to 

improve them in order to better protect the industry,” said Chairwoman Stevens. 

“As the primary regulators for the Indian gaming industry, tribes and tribal 

regulators are uniquely positioned to provide the NIGC with relevant information 

and feedback. We look forward to the discussion.” 

A Notice of Inquiry was published in the Federal Register November 18, 2010, 

notifying the public that the Commission is conducting a comprehensive review of 

all regulations promulgated to implement the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(IGRA). The NOI encourages input regarding which regulations need revision 

and what process should be utilized to revise them. 

This process is consistent with Executive Order 13,175, “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” and reflects the Commission’s 

commitment to hold discussions prior to initiating the rulemaking process and 

before drafting proposed rules. 

All information on the regulatory review, including the Federal Register notice can 

be found by visiting our website at www.nigc.gov. 

The consultations are scheduled from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the Showplace Theatre 

at the Riverwind Casino. Consultations are being held utilizing a group 

discussion format. 

If you have questions or need additional information prior to the meetings, please 

contact Rita Homa, at (202) 632-7003. 

The NIGC is an independent regulatory agency established within the Department of the Interior pursuant 

to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. 

###
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<LEGEND> THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CORPORATIONS FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

      <MULTIPLIER> 1

      <S>                           <C>
      <PERIOD-TYPE>                     QUARTER
      <FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
      <PERIOD-END>                 SEPT-30-2000
      <CASH>                                343
      <SECURITIES>                        2,000
      <RECEIVABLES>                           0
      <ALLOWANCES>                            0
      <INVENTORY>                     1,450,000
      <CURRENT ASSETS>                        0
      <PP&E>                                  0
      <DEPRECIATION>                          0
      <TOTAL ASSETS>                  1,452,343
      <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,199,631
      <BONDS>                                 0
      <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
      <PREFERRED>                             0
      <COMMON>                            2,404
      <OTHER-SE>                        250,308
      <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,452,343
      <SALES>                                 0
      <TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
      <CGS>                                   0
      <TOTAL COSTS>                           0
      <OTHER EXPENSES>                   84,881
     <LOSS PROVISION>                         0
      <INTEREST EXPENSE>                 80,342
      <INCOME PRETAX>                  (165,223)
      <INCOME-TAX>                            0
      <INCOME CONTINUING>                     0
      <DISCONTINUED>                          0
      <EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
      <CHANGES>                               0
      <NET-INCOME>                     (165,223)
      <EPS-BASIC>                       (.007)
      <EPS-DILUTED>                       (.007)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          20,921
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,142
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    115,850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               284,732
<PP&E>                                          41,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,453,764
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       214,083
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,651,645)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   453,804
<SALES>                                         99,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,958
<CGS>                                           53,811
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               365,852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (350,632)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (351,032)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 12(b)Entergy Gulf States, Inc.Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends2000
2001
2002
2003
2004Fixed charges, as defined:Total Interest charges
$158,949
$174,368
$144,840
$157,343
$133,598Interest applicable to rentals
18,307
18,520
16,483
16,694
13,707Total fixed charges, as defined
177,256
192,888
161,323
174,037
147,305Preferred dividends, as defined (a)
15,742
13,017
6,190
6,485
6,991Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined
$192,998
$205,905
$167,513
$180,522
$154,296Earnings as defined:Income (loss) from continuing operations before extraordinary items andthe cumulative effect of accounting changes
$180,343
$179,444
$174,078
$63,895
$192,264Add:Income Taxes
103,603
82,038
65,997
24,249
108,288Fixed charges as above
177,256
192,888
161,323
174,037
147,305Total earnings, as defined (b)
$461,202
$454,370
$401,398
$262,181
$447,857Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
2.60
2.36
2.49
1.51
3.04Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges andpreferred dividends, as defined
2.39
2.21
2.40
1.45
2.90(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by dividing the preferred dividendrequirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the income tax rate.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

BARBARA JAN BOYD

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 12 DB 2017 (No. 16 RST 2017)

Attorney Registration No. 46549

(Bucks County)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2017, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated March 2, 2017, is approved and it is ORDERED that 

Barbara Jan Boyd, who has been on Administrative Suspension, has never been 

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, 

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the 

Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the 

Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation 

and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION 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 Atlas Mining Company on Form 10-K/ A (Amendment No. 2) for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Andre Zeitoun,  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report 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 result of operations of the Company.

















Atlas Mining CompanyDate:   October 8, 2009
By:
/s/  ANDRE ZEITOUNAndre ZeitounChief Executive Officer
#### Maria Gonzales et al., Respondents, v Ihay Zinner et al., Respondents. Esquire Group Estates, LLC, et al., Intervenors-Appellants. (And Another Action.)

Submitted March 4, 2013;

decided April 25, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain this motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Appellate Division where the appeal to the Appellate Division was from an order entered on an appeal from another court *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [7]; CPLR 5602 [a]).