alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT


Board of Directors
Badger Paper Mills, Inc. and Subsidiary


          We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of Badger Paper Mills, Inc. and Subsidiary on Forms S-8 (File No.
333-01671, effective March 13, 1996 and File No. 333-01673, effective March 13,
1996) of our reports dated January 27, 2003, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Badger Paper Mills, Inc. for the years
ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2002.


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Appleton, Wisconsin
February 28, 2003


                                      -47-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6176

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY LAVONNE BERRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00247-FL-1; 5:18-cv-00268-FL)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Lavonne Berry, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6176 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Lavonne Berry seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Berry’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Berry has not made 

the requisite showing. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6176 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 31(c)

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

CERTIFICATION

I, Frank O. Heintz, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 9, 2004

|/s/FRANK O. HEINTZ                    |  | 
|------------------------------------- |  | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

140

---

QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of Town of Huntington, Petitioner, v New York State Board of Real Property Services et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 151]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and RPTL 1218 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Real Property Services, dated August 12, 2003, which established a special equalization rate of 0.76 for the 2003-2004 school year for that portion of the Cold Spring Harbor Central School District located in the Town of Huntington.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs.

The Cold Spring Harbor Central School District (hereinafter the school district) is comprised of a portion of the Town of Huntington and a portion of the Town of Oyster Bay. Rita Wolff, an aggrieved taxpayer in the Town of Oyster Bay, requested *621that the New York State Board of Real Property Services (hereinafter the State Board) establish a special equalization rate for the 2003-2004 school year for that segment of the school district situated in the Town of Huntington. Upon reviewing Wolffs request, which she submitted pursuant to 9 NYCRR 186-5.3 (b), the State Board also conducted an examination of the matter on the basis of data compiled by the State Board itself. As a result, the State Board established a 2003-2004 special equalization rate of 0.76 for the segment of the Town of Huntington located within the school district. The Town of Huntington seeks review of this determination pursuant to CPLR article 78 and RPTL 1218.

Contrary to Wolffs contention, the Town of Huntington has standing to seek review of the determination because it is the town “for which the rate or rates were established” (RPTL 1218). However, the Town of Huntington failed to demonstrate that the methodology used by the State Board in determining the special equalization rate was not rational or that the special equalization rate of 0.76 was not supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Town of Rye v New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs.,*5 AD3d 783, 785 [2004]; *Matter of Town Bd. of Town of Cortlandt v New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs.,*282 AD2d 467 [2001]; *Matter of Town of Wallkill v New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs.,*274 AD2d 856, 858 [2000]; *Matter of Town of Greenburgh v New York State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment,*226 AD2d 546 [1996]). Moreover, Wolffs request for the special equalization rate contained information sufficient to support a determination that application of the state equalization rate for the prior tax roll to the segment of the school district situated in the Town of Huntington would be inequitable *(see*9 NYCRR 186-5.3 [b] [3]). In any event, upon reviewing Wolffs request, the State Board was also empowered, upon its own motion, to initiate a review of the data in its own possession to determine if a special equalization rate was warranted *(see*9 NYCRR 186-5.3 [a]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
97-537.

#### State ex rel. Engle v. Lundy.

In Mandamus. On answer and motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Hernandez, Appellant.

Submitted April 16, 2012;

decided May 8, 2012

Motion for reargument dismissed as untimely *(see*Rules of Ct of Appeals [22 NYCRR] § 500.24 [b]) *[see*95 NY2d 885 (2000); *84895 NY2d 792 (2000)]. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 175 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 175

  Expressing support for the designation of the week of June 1, 2019, 
      through June 9, 2019, as National Fishing and Boating Week.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2019

  Mr. Joyce of Ohio (for himself, Mrs. Beatty, Ms. Frankel, and Mrs. 
Walorski) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
    Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for the designation of the week of June 1, 2019, 
      through June 9, 2019, as National Fishing and Boating Week.

Whereas over 141.6 million Americans go boating each year, including 71.1 
        million adults and 70.5 million children;
Whereas the recreational boating industry contributes $170.3 billion to the 
        national economy in direct, indirect, and induced spending, which 
        supports over 35,000 businesses and 691,000 direct and indirect jobs in 
        the United States;
Whereas the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce has 
        estimated that recreational boating and fishing contributes $36.9 
        billion to the United States gross domestic product;
Whereas 95 percent of boats sold in the United States are made in the United 
        States;
Whereas there are approximately 1,300 active marine manufacturers in the United 
        States, using materials and services contributed from all 50 States;
Whereas boaters are stewards of the environment, contributing $600 million in 
        excise taxes annually to the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust 
        Fund which funds habitat conservation and restoration efforts, 
        preserving our natural resources for future generations; and
Whereas boating provides opportunities for families to be together, appeals to 
        all age groups, and has a beneficial effect on the physical fitness and 
        scholastic performance of those who participate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of National Fishing and 
        Boating Week; and
            (2) recognizes that the recreational boating community and 
        the boating industry of the United States should be commended 
        for their numerous contributions to the economy of the United 
        States, the well-being of United States citizens, and 
        responsible environmental stewardship of water resources of the 
        United States.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RAMIRO AGUILAR

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

'

' No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 229

- CR

Appeal from the

Cr i minal District Court No.4

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC# F

- 1351855

- K )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief

until November 25

, 201 5

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

THE APPELLANT ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Kat hleen A. Walsh , the Appellant ’s Attor ney,

prepare the Appellant ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before November 25 , 201 5

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 th day of October , 201 5

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Sep-30-
1997
<CASH>                        2,141,750
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 37,600
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,179,350
<PP&E>                       25,987,000
<DEPRECIATION>               15,886,906
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               12,601,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,834,551
<BONDS>                       0
<COMMON>                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                   10,766,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-
EQUITY>                      12,601,241
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              3,994,667
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              3,138,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               856,023
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           856,023
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  856,023
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .17
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

               SUBSIDIARIES OF CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC.*

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Jurisdiction
                                                                        of
                                                                   incorporation
                                                                   -------------
<S>                                                                <C>
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company................................     Maryland
Constellation Holdings, Inc. .....................................     Maryland
Constellation Investments, Inc. ..................................     Maryland
Constellation Power, Inc. ........................................     Maryland
Constellation Real Estate Group, Inc. ............................     Maryland
Constellation Enterprises, Inc. ..................................     Maryland
Constellation Power Source, Inc. .................................     Delaware
Constellation Energy Source, Inc. ................................     Delaware
Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation............................... Pennsylvania
BGE Home Products & Services, Inc. ...............................     Maryland
BGE Capital Trust I...............................................     Delaware
</TABLE>

* The names of certain indirectly owned subsidiaries have been omitted because,
  considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, they would not constitute
  a significant subsidiary pursuant to Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X.

                                       98
#### EBC I, Inc., Formerly Known as eToys Inc., Appellant, v Goldman Sachs & Co., Respondent.

Submitted April 22, 2013;

decided April 25, 2013

Motion by Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein *897granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and nine copies filed within seven days.
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-A  ("Issuer") for the period
ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 14th day of August, 2006.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-A
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income Limited  Partnership  II-A and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership  II-A and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

**  Exhibit 32.2**

**MPHASE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) **

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation(the"Company"),onForm10-QforthequarterendedMarch31,2009,asfiledwiththeSecurities and Exchange Commission(the "Report"), I, Martin S Smiley, Chief Financial Officer oftheCompanycertify,pursuant toSection906 oftheSarbanes-OxleyAct of2002(18 U.S.C.Section 1350), that to hisknowledge:
1.

TheReportfullycomplieswiththerequirements ofSection13(a) or15(d) oftheSecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
2.

The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operationsof the Company.
/s/ Martin S. Smiley                                    Martin S. SmileyChief Financial Officer

May 15th, 2009
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS OF
CROWN OIL COMPANY, (UTAH)

Salt Lake City, Utah

To the Stockholders of Crown Oil Company:

Please take notice that the Board of Directors have called a special
meeting of the Stockholders of Crown Oil Company to be held outside
of the principal office of the Corporation in Utah, on May 8, 1968
at 2:00 p.m. in St. George, Utah at the St. George Travelodge Motel,
to consider and act upon the following resolutions passed
unanimously by the Board of Directors at their meeting held
April 18, 1968.

1. RESOLVED: That the letter of intent proposal made to Crown Oil
Company by the Bagdad Chase Mining Company in its letter dated
April 15, 1968 to acquire all the assets of this corporation and
assume its liabilities, in exchange for 80,000 shares of Bagdad
Chase, Inc. common stock be and is hereby accepted.

2. RESOLVED: That the members of this Board are of the opinion that
they can correct the deficiency now existing in the corporation's
amount of cash called for in the said proposal through a loan or
loans to the corporation. Such loan or 10iins to receive the
corporation's promissory note described as follows, and the
issuance of Same is hereby authorized.

Maturity:	Ten years.

Interest:	60/0 per annum, non-compound.

Interest
Payable:	Callable: At maturity, but annually when earned.
		Any time @ face amount plus 1000/0 premium.

Convertible:	Any time into 10 shares of Crown Oil Company common
		stock for each dollar face amount of note.

Subordinated:	To all other debt of the company.

Notes to be issued in any event to not over ten (10) individuals or
estates and pursuant to an investment letter to be signed by the
purchaser signifying his intent to hold said note as an investment.

3. RESOLVED: That this corporation be dissolved, and the officers
of this corporation are hereby authorized and directed to take all
actions necessary to carry out such dissolution as soon as it is,
in their opinion, practical under the circumstances.

Dated: April 25, 1968

Richard M. Lade Secretary
97-602.

#### Salerno v. State.

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

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 Nos. 333-50132 and 333-75014) pertaining to the 1998 Incentive Compensation
Plan of BKF Capital Group, Inc. of our report dated March 3, 2004, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of BKF Capital Group, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2003 included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2003 and incorporation of our report dated March 3, 2004 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of BKF Capital Group, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2003 in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2004.


                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


New York, New York
March 10, 2005