alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
POWER OF ATTORNEY                                                EXHIBIT 24.1(B)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Each of the undersigned, being a director or officer, or both, of GAYLORD
CONTAINER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby
constitute and appoint each of Marvin A. Pomerantz and Daniel P. Casey as his
true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him/her and in his/her name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Corporation's Form 10-K for the Corporation's 1999
fiscal year and to file same, together with all exhibits thereto and other
attachments and documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the American Stock Exchange and any other regulatory
authority, and to sign, file or deliver such further documents and to take such
further actions in connection therewith as each of the undersigned might or
could do in person and as each such attorney and agent deems necessary or
desirable; and each of the undersigned does hereby fully ratify and confirm all
that said attorneys and agents, or any of them, or the substitute of any of
them, shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

SIGNATURE                                                                  TITLE


/s/Marvin A. Pomerantz            Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director
--------------------------                         (Principal Executive Officer)
Marvin A. Pomerantz


/s/Daniel P. Casey                                      Executive Vice President
--------------------------                         (Principal Financial Officer)
Daniel P. Casey


/s/Jeffrey B. Park                           Vice President-Corporate Controller
--------------------------                        (Principal Accounting Officer)
Jeffrey B. Park


/s/Mary Sue Coleman                                                     Director
--------------------------
Mary Sue Coleman


/s/Harve A. Ferrill                                                     Director
--------------------------
Harve A. Ferrill


/s/John E. Goodenow                                                     Director
--------------------------
John E. Goodenow


/s/David B. Hawkins                                                     Director
--------------------------
David B. Hawkins


/s/Warren J. Hayford                                                    Director
--------------------------
Warren J. Hayford


/s/Charles S. Johnson                                                   Director
--------------------------
Charles S. Johnson


/s/Jerry W. Kolb                                                        Director
--------------------------
Jerry W. Kolb


/s/Ralph L. MacDonald Jr.                                               Director
--------------------------
Ralph L. MacDonald Jr.


/s/Thomas H. Stoner                                                     Director
--------------------------
Thomas H. Stoner
#### DALEY v. EVANS CASE CO.

No. 6128.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 26, 1940.

George K. Woodworth, of Boston, Mass., and Fricke & De Busk, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Nutter, McClennen & Fish, Edward F. McClennen, Edward Williamson, and Harold E. Cole, all of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

FORD, District Judge.

It appears that the defendant has answered paragraphs numbered 3, 4, and 5 of the plaintiff’s motion for bill of particulars, but has refused to answer paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the same.

Paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the plaintiff’s motion seem to be an attempt to require the defendant to set out its contentions and opinions in respect of certain phases of the case. I see no reason for compelling it to do so by means of a motion for a bill of particulars. The defendant should not be obliged under this *362rule to make part of the pleadings what it will finally contend are the conclusions to be drawn by the court from all the evidence.

The plaintiff’s motion for further answers to his motion for a bill of particulars is denied.
1. THOMAS HOLLAND,(2Lis now confined at the Essex County Jail, 354 Doremus Avenue, Newark, New Jersey.

2. Said individual will be required at Newark, New Jersey, before the Hon. William H. Walls, United

States District Senior Judge on Tuesdays August 17th, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., for an Arraignment. A Wnt of Habeas Corpus should be issued for that purpose /2 /

DATED August 12th 2010

BRIANURBANO

ASSISTANT US. ATTORNEY

ORDER

Let the Writ Issue. )

DATED: kIU /c4-20iO

Li

UNITED STATES DISTRICT SENIOR JUDGE

WRIT Qf HABEAS CORPUS

The United States of America to the Warden of the Essex County Jail, Newark, New Jersey

WE COMMAND YOU that you have the body of

THOMAS HOLLAND

now confined at the Essex County Jail, be brought before the United States District Court, the Honorable William H. Walls, District Judge, In the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building and Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, on August j7t, 2010, at 9:30 am., so that he may appear for an Arraignment in the above-captioned matter.

WITNESS the Honorable William H. Walls

United States District Senior Judge

Newark, New Jersey

DATED: WILLIAM T. WALSH

(tN Clerk of the US. District Court

I for theistrict of Nery

Per:

puty lerk
905 A.2d 876

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DERIC ROWE, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 8, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1997, FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,020
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,020
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,020
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,028
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               561,469
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  442,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,608
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 98,893
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,211
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             95,682
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,682
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.21
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 quarterly report of WaterPure International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert F. Orr, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities and 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.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to WaterPure International,
Inc. and will be retained by WaterPure International, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Date:  February 23,
      2009
                By:
                /s/ ROBERT
      F. ORRRobert
      F. OrrChief
      Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6799

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARVIN SPRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:01-cr-00011-1; 2:16-cv05852)

Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: November 5, 2018

Before KING, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Spry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Spry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended 

dismissing Spry’s motion as untimely and advised Spry that the failure to file timely 

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order 

based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Spry has 

waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, 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 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15519]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0266]


Office of New Reactors; Notice of Availability of the Final 
Interim Staff Guidance DC/COL-ISG-007 on Assessment of Normal and 
Extreme Winter Precipitation Loads on the Roofs of Seismic Category I 
Structures

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: The NRC is issuing its Final Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DC/
COL-ISG-007 (ML091490565). This ISG provides clarification of the NRC 
position on identifying winter precipitation events as site 
characteristics and site parameters for determining normal and extreme 
winter precipitation loads on the roofs of Seismic Category I 
structures.
    The NRC staff issues ISGs to facilitate timely implementation of 
the current staff guidance and to facilitate activities associated with 
review of applications for early site permits and combined licenses for 
the Office of New Reactors. The NRC staff will also incorporate DC/COL-
ISG-007 into the next revisions of the Regulatory Guide 1.206, 
``Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants,'' and related 
guidance documents.

ADDRESSES: The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who 
encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should 
contact the NRC Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#19697d6b376b7c6a766c6b7a7c59776b7a377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="700014025e0215031f05021315301e02135e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brad Harvey, Division of Site and 
Environmental Reviews, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-4118 or e-mail 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d391a1b2b7fd9bb2a1a5b6aa93bda1b0fdb4bca5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e3c0c1f1a50361f0c081b073e100c1d50191108">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC posts its issued staff guidance on 
the NRC external Web page (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
William F. Burton,
Chief, Rulemaking and Guidance Development Branch, Division of New 
Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. E9-15519 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Martinez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered August 17, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*632Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the conviction *(see People v Bevins,*27 AD3d 572 [2006]). In any event, his claim that he was oblivious to what was going on because he was on medication is belied by the transcript of the plea proceeding, which shows that he answered all of the court’s questions appropriately, allocuted to the crime, and expressly stated that he knew what was going on and was thinking clearly.

The defendant’s claim that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel is not reviewable on direct appeal because it is based on matter dehors the record *(see People v Whitaker,*27 AD3d 499 [2006]).

Finally, the defendant’s effective waiver of the right to appeal encompassed his argument that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248 [2006]; *People v Aveni,*7 AD3d 632 [2004]; *People v Thomas,*262 AD2d 588 [1999]). Miller, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
AMENDED DLD
- 095 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 3

- 4166

___________ IN RE: LEOTIS FOWLER ,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United St ates District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.C. Civ. No. 13

- cv - 03137 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

December 5, 2013 Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN , Circuit Judges

( Opinion filed: January 9, 2014 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM In April 2013, petitioner Leotis Fowler filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a “prompt supervise[d] releas e revocation hearing.” That Court, recognizing that the sentencing court retains jurisdiction to modify or revoke supervised release, transferr ed the petition to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the jurisdiction in which th e sentence was imposed. In an order entered May 20, 2013, the matter was administratively2

terminated for failure to pay the filing fee or to file a completed in forma pauperis application.
A review of the docket sheet indicates that the order that was s ent to Fowler was returned as undeliverable, apparently because it was sent to the wrong address. 1 Fowler, unaware that an order had been entered in the case, filed the instant mandamus petition, alleging delay in the adjudication of his habeas petition and seeking an order directing the District Court to rule in the matter. Since the filing of this petition, Fowler has received a copy of the District Court’s order. Because Fowler has received the relief he requested in his mandamus petition, we will deny the mandamus petition as moot. The motion for a refund of the filing fee is granted.

1 Fowler is incarcerated at FCI

- Otisville, in Otisville, New York. His correct address is indicated on the docket, as well as in his habeas petition. Inexpli cably, however, the District Court noted in its order that Fowler was located in FCI

- Schuykill in Minersville, Pennsylvania.
911 A.2d 479

#### IN THE MATTER OF RUSSELL T. KIVLER, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

December 7, 2006.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB-06-187, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to *Rule*1:20-4(f)(default by respondent), that RUSSELL T. KIVLER of MERCERVILLE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1973, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.16(d)(failure to return retainer after termination of representation) and *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RUSSELL T. KIVLER is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
EXHIBIT
31.2


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER





I, C.
Andrew Brooks, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-Q of RedRoller Holdings, Inc.;





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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
small business issuer’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 small business issuer and
have:





(a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b) Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c) Disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial
reporting; and





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





(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and





(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting.





Dated:
May 15, 2008


By:
              /s/ C.
      Andrew
      BrooksC.
      Andrew BrooksExec.
      Vice President, Treasurer and Asst Secy(principal
      financial and accounting officer)
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

The undersigned, Michael J. Threet, is the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Silver State Bancorp (the
Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify
that:



| | (A) | the Report 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
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |                      
|--------------- |  | ---------------------
|August 10, 2007 |  | /s/ Michael J. Threet
|Dated           |  | Michael J. Threet