alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(a)


            REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

TO THE PARTNERS AND THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF
Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership:

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and the related
consolidated statements of operations, partners' equity and cash flows present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Midland
Cogeneration Limited Partnership (a Michigan limited partnership) and its
subsidiaries (MCV) at December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for the each of the two years ended December 31,
2003 and 2002 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America. These financial statements are the responsibility of
MCV's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in
accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing
the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. The financial statements of
MCV for the year ended December 31, 2001, were audited by other independent
accountants who have ceased operations. Those independent accountants expressed
an unqualified opinion on those financial statements in their report dated
January 18, 2002.

As explained in Note 2 to the financial statements, effective April 1, 2002,
Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership changed its method of
accounting for derivative and hedging activities in accordance with Derivative
Implementation Group ("DIG") Issue C-16.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

DETROIT, MICHIGAN
FEBRUARY 18, 2004



                                      F-2
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 29 

To authorize the use of the rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the Capitol 

by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United 

States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 20, 2016 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

To authorize the use of the rotunda and Emancipation Hall 

of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee 

on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration 

of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of 

the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA AND EMANCIPATION 

4 HALL OF THE CAPITOL. 

5 The rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the United 

6 States Capitol are authorized to be used on January 20, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 29 ATS 

1 2017, by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 

2 Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and cere3 monies conducted for the inauguration of the President4 elect and the Vice President-elect of the United States. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2125

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Griffin Riley Davis lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ Submitted: February 1, 2021 Filed: February 10, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Griffin Davis appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has moved for leave

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines; and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 24 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 24

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
 for the unveiling of the marble bust of Vice President Richard Cheney 
                          on December 3, 2015.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 5, 2015

   Mr. Blunt (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Reid) 
submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
 for the unveiling of the marble bust of Vice President Richard Cheney 
                          on December 3, 2015.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR THE UNVEILING OF THE MARBLE 
              BUST OF VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD CHENEY.

    (a) In General.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is 
authorized to be used for a ceremony to unveil the marble bust of Vice 
President Richard Cheney on December 3, 2015.
    (b) Preparations.--The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol 
Police Board shall take such action as may be necessary with respect to 
physical preparations and security for the ceremony described in 
subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00585-CR

Ronald Dale Marshall, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 36247, HONORABLE GUILFORD L. JONES III, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Ronald Dale Marshall seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for theft of property.

The trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and that Marshall has no right of appeal.

We note further that the sentence imposed conforms with the sentence the State agreed to

recommend and that Marshall waived his right of appeal as part of the plea agreement. The appeal

is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

___________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: November 19, 2009

Do Not Publish
#### In re ARKCO CORPORATION

Bankruptcy No. 96-20373 S.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas, Helena Division.

April 29, 1997.

Allen Bird, Little Rock, AR, for petitioner.

Susan Gunter, Little Rock, for respondent.

*ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL*

MARY DAVIES SCOTT, Bankruptcy Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a review of the file. This case was commenced on December 24, 1996, by the filing of a petition. On December 31, 1996, W.T. Paine filed an “Emergency Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases as Unauthorized and Filed in Bad Faith.” Hearing on the matter was held on March 24-25, 1997, and an Order of Dismissal was entered on March 28, 1997. A notice of appeal was required to be filed on or before April 7,1997. However, the debtor filed a Notice of Appeal on April 9, 1997, Fed. R. Bankr.Proe. 8002(a), and elected for the appeal to be heard by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1)(A); L.R. BAP 8th Cir. 01(a)(1). Inasmuch as the appeal was untimely filed, no court has jurisdiction over the appeal.1
      *See Jacobson v.*
      *467
      *Nielsen,*932 F.2d 1272 (8th Cir.1991); *Pilliod of Carolina, Inc. v. Ray (In re Arkansas Wholesale Furniture, Inc.),*19 B.R. 1013 (E.D.Ark.1982) (Roy, J.). In addition, under Rule 8006, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the debtor was required to file and serve a designation of the record on appeal and request, if necessary, a transcript of the proceedings on or before April 21, 1997.2 The debtor has failed to designate the record, failed to provide copies of documents, and has failed to request a transcript from the Court recorder.

Under Local Rule 4-2(II)(d)(A), Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, “The bankruptcy court is authorized to dismiss an appeal field after the time provided by the applicable rules and any appeal in which the appellant has failed to file a designation of the items for the record, or the transcript designated for inclusion in the record or a statement of the issues as required by the applicable rules.” *See generally Rivermeadows Associates v. Falcey (In re Rivermeadows Associates),*205 B.R. 264 (10th Cir. BAP 1997) (bankruptcy court had authority to dismiss appeal pursuant to local rule). Upon the debtor’s noncomplianee with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and by virtue of the authority granted by the district court, it is

ORDERED that the appeal of the Order of Dismissal, notice of which was filed on April 9,1997, is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

. The provision contained in Rule 8002, providing for an extension of time to file a Notice of *467Appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect, is inapplicable inasmuch as the Order appealed from is an Order dismissing the case. Fed. R. Bankr.Proc. 8002(a). In any event the time by which such a motion must be filed has expired.

. The tenth day fell on Saturday, April 19, 1997, such that the time to file the designation of record and statement of issues was required to be filed on April 21, 1997. Fed. R. Bankr.Proc. 9006.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          118294
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 25000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     368870
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        1415571
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (26721)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1977150
<DEPOSITS>                                     1757545
<SHORT-TERM>                                     23250
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              31843
<LONG-TERM>                                       2239
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         15930
<OTHER-SE>                                      146343
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 1977150
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 124201
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                24049
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  1939
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                150189
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               57097
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               59545
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            90644
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     4050
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  70072
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  44732
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       44732
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     29406
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.94
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.78
<LOANS-NON>                                       6481
<LOANS-PAST>                                      2838
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   767
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 28096
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     8237
<RECOVERIES>                                      2812
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                26721
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             26721
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### *In re*Merrill and others, Bankrupts.

*(District Court, N. D. New York.*

1884.)

Bankruptcy—Promissory Note—Indorser—Part Payment—Note for Balance-Petition in Bankruptcy.

The principle that the taking of a promissory note does not extinguish the original debt except by express agreement, lias little application to a case where the parties sought to be charged are not makers but indorsers, and when, prior to the date of the second note, (given for balance after part payment of the first,) their legal *status*is completely changed by the filing of a petition in bankruptcy.

*121Prior to the filing of the petition the bankrupts were charged as indorsers on a note for $1,500, made by one Gaylord. After the filing of the petition, the claimant, who was the holder of the note, received a payment of $500 thereon and a new note similarly indorsed for the balance, $1,000. The register found that this transaction was a payment of the $1,500 note which was thereupon given up. The claimant first proved the $1,000 note but subsequently offered to surrender it to the assignee and filed a supplemental proof for the balance alleged to be due on the original $1,500 note. The register found that the $1,000 note was provable because made and delivered before the actual adjudication in bankruptcy. The question now comes before the court upon exceptions filed by both parties to the report.

*Richard C. Steele,*for claimant.

*Charles F. Durston,*for assignee.

Coxe, J.

The original and supplemental proof should be expunged. The former, for the reason that the note upon which it is founded was made and delivered after the filing of the petition in bankruptcy; the latter, upon the authority of *In re Montgomery,*3 N. B. R. 426.

The cases cited by the counsel for the claimant, holding that the taking of a promissory note, does not extinguish the original debt unless by express agreement, have, I think, but little application to a case where the parties sought to be charged are not makers but indorsers, and where, prior to the date of the second note, their legal *■status*is completely changed by the filing of a petition in bankruptcy.
ARROW
      INTERNATIONAL, INC.




**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Section
      1350 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
      ended
      May 31, 2007 of Arrow International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the
      “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip B. Fleck, the Interim President and Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
      knowledge and based upon a review of the Report, that:





(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 as of the
      dates
      and for periods presented as required by such Report.





This
      certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities as Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, my own due diligence and representations
      made
      by certain other members of the Company’s senior management.





Date:
      July 9, 2007







/s/
                Philip B.
                Fleck
              Philip
                B. Fleck
              Interim
                President and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
_


first amendment

to the

employment agreement

MARCH 15, 2009

WHEREAS, TESCO CORPORATION, a corporation organized under the laws of the province of Alberta, Canada (the "Company") and ROBERT L. KAYL ("Executive") entered into the Employment Agreement effective on August 18, 2008 (the "Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the approval by the compensation committee and the board of directors of the Company of an increase in Executive's Base Annual Salary commencing January 1, 2009 to $265,000, the parties recognize that Executive has voluntarily refrained from drawing that increased Base Annual Salary to date; and

WHEREAS, Executive and the Company have now agreed that commencing March 15, 2009, Executive's Base Annual Salary to be actually paid for the remainder of 2009 shall be equal to the amount of Executive's Base Annual Salary for the same portion of 2008, reduced by 10% ("Reduction"); and

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive agree that such Reduction alone shall not constitute a Good Reason under the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the definition of Base Annual Salary for the calculation of certain benefits provided under the Agreement for the calendar year 2009;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed as follows: 

1.The following shall be added at the end of the Section 5(b):
"For the purposes of calculating the STIP for the calendar year 2009, Base Annual Salary shall mean the amount approved by the compensation committee of the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors in November 2008 which is $265,000, without regard as to the actual amount of Base Annual Salary paid to Executive for the calendar year 2009."


2.New subsection 7(j) shall be added as follows:
"(j)Certain Definitions for Calendar year 2009.  For the purposes of calculating amounts payable under Sections 7(c), (d) and (e) during the calendar year 2009, Base Annual Salary shall mean the amount approved by the compensation committee of the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors in November 2008 which is $265,000 without regard as to the actual amount of Base Annual Salary paid to Executive for the calendar year 2009."




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement effective as of March 15, 2009.

EXECUTIVE:



/s/ Robert L. Kayl

Robert L. Kayl







EMPLOYER:



Tesco Corporation



 

By:  /s/ Julio M. Quintana

Julio M. Quintana

President and
Chief Executive Officer
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 90 

To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to authorize hunting under certain 

circumstances. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

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

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to authorize 

hunting under certain circumstances. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Migratory Bird Treaty 

5 Amendment Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MIGRATORY BIRDS. 

7 Section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 

8 U.S.C. 704) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 90 IS

1 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding any other provi2 sion of this Act, subsection (b) shall not apply to an agri3 cultural producer, or a hunter with the permission of the 

4 agricultural producer, if— 

5 ‘‘(1) the manipulation occurs on land of the ag6 ricultural producer on which a crop during the cur7 rent or immediately preceding crop year was not 

8 harvestable due to a natural disaster, as determined 

9 by the Secretary of Agriculture; and 

10 ‘‘(2) a local representative of the Secretary of 

11 Agriculture confirms that— 

12 ‘‘(A) the crop has been destroyed; and 

13 ‘‘(B) it would not be economically prac14 ticable to harvest the crop.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 117 

Recognizing linemen, the profession of linemen, the contributions of these 

brave men and women who protect public safety, and expressing support 

for the designation of March 31, 2015, as National Lineman Appreciation 

Day. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 26, 2015 

Mr. TILLIS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing linemen, the profession of linemen, the contributions of these brave men and women who protect public 

safety, and expressing support for the designation of 

March 31, 2015, as National Lineman Appreciation Day. 

Whereas the profession of linemen is steeped in personal, 

family, and professional tradition; 

Whereas linemen are often first responders during storms 

and other catastrophic events, working to make the scene 

safe for other public safety heroes; 

Whereas linemen must work high atop powerlines 24 hours 

a day, 365 days a year, to keep electricity flowing; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 117 IS 

Whereas linemen play a vital role in the Nation’s economy by 

maintaining and growing the energy infrastructure of the 

United States; 

Whereas linemen must often work under dangerous conditions separated from their families to keep schools and 

businesses open; 

Whereas linemen put their lives on the line every day with 

little recognition from the community regarding the danger of their work; and 

Whereas March 31, 2015, would be an appropriate date to 

designate as National Lineman Appreciation Day: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the efforts of linemen in keeping 

3 the power on and protecting public safety; and 

4 (2) supports the designation of National Line5 man Appreciation Day. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS