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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7177

JOSEPH KINARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

TRACY JOHNS; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., The

Attorney General of the State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(8:07-cv-00132-DKC)

Submitted: February 13, 2008 Decided: April 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Kinard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
1

Kinard’s notice of appeal states he is appealing the district

court’s May 29, 2007 order and “any and all other decisions of the

court in reference to the denial of his habeas corpus motion as

well.” We construe Kinard’s notice of appeal as an attempt to

appeal both the district court’s May 29, 2007 order denying

Kinard’s motion for reconsideration and the district court’s

January 26, 2007 order dismissing without prejudice Kinard’s 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition as second or successive.

2

Kinard did not move for an extension of time to file his

appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Kinard seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his

subsequent motion for reconsideration.1

 We dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely

filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).2

 This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

The district court’s orders were entered on the docket in

January 2007 and May 2007, respectively. Kinard’s notice of appeal
3

Because Kinard is a prisoner and filed his notice of appeal

pro se, it is deemed filed on the date he gave it to prison

officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). July 27, 2007, is the date Kinard

provided next to his signature on the notice of appeal. 

- 3 -

was filed, at the earliest, on July 27, 2007.3 Because Kinard

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension

or reopening of the appeal period as to either of the district

court’s orders, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         942,307
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,157,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (303,882)
<INVENTORY>                                     18,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,378,563
<PP&E>                                      74,387,031
<DEPRECIATION>                              26,298,422
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,685,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,967,125
<BONDS>                                     12,294,212
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,563,779
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,838,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,685,383
<SALES>                                     16,649,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,496,762
<CGS>                                       15,561,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,857,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             963,772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,680,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,438,726
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,241,399
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                189,687
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,051,712
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.31


</TABLE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00204

- CV

T HE C ITY OF S PRINGTOWN

, Appellant

V

.

K

ALIE A SHENFELTER , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 43rd District

Court

of Parker County ( CV21

- 1205 )

April 25, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of t he trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant The City of Springtown shall pay all

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwe l l
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### Sarah V. Bohannon v. Commonwealth of Virginia

September 30, 1998

By Judge Randall G. Johnson

The court has now read the parties’ written submissions in support of counsel’s oral arguments on September 28. The decision of the agency holding that Ms. Bohannon’s June 19, 1998, grievance does not qualify for a hearing will be affirmed.

Ms. Bohannon complains that she was forced to resign because of intolerable conditions at work. While the court agrees that such a complaint might be grievable, her grievance was not submitted in time. The record clearly and affirmatively shows that Ms. Bohannon submitted her resignation, involuntarily or otherwise, on May 14, 1998. Her grievance was not filed until June 19. Since the state’s written Grievance Procedure requires that a grievance be filed within thirty calendar days of the event complained about, her grievance is not timely. The court rejects her argument that her May 14 resignation was conditioned upon her request for leave being denied, thereby making her “official” resignation not effective until sometime after May 14. Her resignation letter contains no such condition. It states “I am resigning *today*... .” Emphasis added.

Ms. Bohannon further argues that her grievance is timely because she is also complaining about the agency’s refusal to allow her to withdraw her resignation. Her request for withdrawal was made by letter dated May 20, 1998. The agency responded by letter dated May 21. While both of those dates are within thirty calendar days of the filing of her grievance, the court agrees with the agency that the agency’s refusal to allow her to withdraw her grievance is not, of itself, grievable. Indeed, Ms. Bohannon concedes, as she must, that the decision to allow such withdrawal is a matter of agency discretion. Absent an allegation of some other grievable act, such as racial or *412sex discrimination, retaliation, discipline, etc., a hearing officer would be powerless to require the agency to exercise its discretion to allow withdrawal of the resignation. All of Ms. Bohannon’s grievable complaints, however, occurred at or before the time she resigned, which is more than thirty days before she filed her grievance. She cannot extend the filing period by making a later request to have her resignation withdrawn.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, the undersigned officer of ING Insurance
Company of America (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to the officer's
knowledge, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date   March 25, 2004                    By  /s/ Keith Gubbay
       --------------                        ----------------
                                             Keith Gubbay
                                             Director and President


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

                                       56
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000860331
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND II, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             175,658
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   175,658
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,636,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                         581,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,636,603
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4,127
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       50,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    62,293
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (108,674)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (108,674)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (108,674)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (15.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
----

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Mel G. Riggs                                  |
|---------------------------------------------------|
| Mel G. Riggs                                      |
| President and Chief Executive Officer             |
| of Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                 |
| Managing General Partner of                       |
| Southwest Oil & Gas Income Fund X-A, L.P.     |
|                                              |
| March 29, 2011                                    |
|                                              |
|                                              |
| /s/ Michael L. Pollard                            |
| Michael L. Pollard                                |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| of Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                 |
| Managing General Partner of                       |
| Southwest Oil & Gas Income Fund X-A, L.P.     |
|                                              |
| March 29, 2011                                    |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46236-46237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21306]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice 2017-6007]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

    Form Title: EIB 11-03, Used Equipment Questionnaire.

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    This collection will provide information needed to determine 
compliance and creditworthiness for transaction requests involving 
previously-owned equipment submitted to Ex-Im Bank under its insurance, 
guarantee, and direct loan programs. Information presented in this form 
will be considered in the overall evaluation of the transaction, 
including Export-Import Bank's determination of the appropriate term 
for the transaction.
    The form can be viewed at: https://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/forms/eib11-03.pdf.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before December 4, 2017, to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to Mardel West, Export-Import Bank of 
the United States, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Titles and Form Number: EIB 11-03, Used Equipment Questionnaire.
    OMB Number: 3048-0039.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The information collected will provide information 
needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction 
requests involving previously-owned equipment submitted to the Export 
Import Bank under its insurance, guarantee, and direct loan programs.

[[Page 46237]]

Affected Public

    This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and 
services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 1,000.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 250 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.

Government Expenses

    Reviewing Time per Year: 250 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $10,625 (time * wages).
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $12,750.

Bassam Doughman,
IT Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2017-21306 Filed 10-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                             3,889
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     15,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                         785
<INVENTORY>                                       16,498
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  37,524
<PP&E>                                            15,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                       612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    98,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              9,788
<BONDS>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              73
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        88,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      98,773
<SALES>                                           20,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  20,682
<CGS>                                              8,063
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      8,063
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    2,850
<INCOME-TAX>                                       1,125
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                1,725
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.23
        

</TABLE>
#### Viga Investments, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v Mittal Steel USA, Inc., Respondent-Appellant. Mittal Steel USA, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Viga Investments, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[859 NYS2d 371]

—Cross appeals from an order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered February 13, 2008, and order, same court and Justice, entered on February 15, 2008, unanimously withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the stipulation of the parties hereto. No opinion. Order filed. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Moskowitz, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.
exhibit10-83.htm




Exhibit 10.83


 


Letter agreement effective January 1, 2011 between Jim Caulfield and Move, Inc. regarding paid time off


 


MOVE

910 East Hamilton Ave., 6th Floor

Campbell, CA 95008


 


November 17, 2010


 


Dear Jim,


 


Effective January 1, 2011, you and other senior executives reporting directly to the CEO (the “Leadership Team”) will no longer be subject to, or accrue or accumulate paid time off under the vacation, floating holiday and/or paid sick leave policies set forth in the Move Inc. Employee Handbook or in your offer letter or any other documentation with the Company.


 


Rather, members of the Leadership Team will be permitted to take paid time off for vacation and personal matters, subject to business needs, with the approval of the CEO. The primary limitations on permitting the taking of vacation or time off for personal matters will be those dictated by your job responsibilities. Accordingly, there will be no prescribed limits on the amount of vacation or personal time, if any, that you may request or be permitted to take in a given year notwithstanding any reference thereto in any offer letter or any other documentation with the Company.


 


In addition, paid time off for occasional, short illnesses will be permitted on an as-needed basis, subject to medical verification if requested by the CEO. Leadership Team members who qualify for and are granted a leave of absence under Move Inc.’s Disability Leave of Absence or Family and Medical Leave of Absence policies will be paid for up to a maximum of ninety (90) days of any such leave taken in any twelve (12)-month rolling period, less any income received from any income replacement benefits or insurance provided pursuant to any applicable law or Company-sponsored insurance or benefit program.


 


Members of the Leadership Team will retain all vacation accrued on or before December 31, 2010. Paid time off taken on or after January 1, 2011 will reduce any such accrued vacation balance. If upon separation from employment, a Leadership Team member has a balance of unused vacation, he or she will be paid out in accordance with the Company’s policies and practices and applicable law.


 


Please indicate you acceptance of these terms by signing below and returning this letter to me.


 


Very truly yours,


 



	       	/s/ Steve Berkowitz	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Steve Berkowitz	 	 	 
	Chief Executive Officer	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	cc       	Carol Brummer, VP, Human Resources	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Name   	/s/ James S. Caulfield	Date	       11/17/10	 
	 	Jim Caulfield
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2896 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2896

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2012

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 369 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey City, New Jersey, as the 
          ``Judge Shirley A. Tolentino Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JUDGE SHIRLEY A. TOLENTINO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 369 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey City, New Jersey, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Judge Shirley A. Tolentino Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Judge 
Shirley A. Tolentino Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```