alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6705

CHARLES RAY CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOE MITCHELL, Sheriff of the York County Sheriff’s Department; JAMES TEDDY, Lieutenant; BILLY DONAHUE, Correctional Officer; R. HILL, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr, District Judge. (CA-95-2898-6-20) Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: August 27, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Ray Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Keith Wray, II, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Charles Ray Carter appeals the district court’s order denying Carter’s motion to reopen this action, in which a jury verdict was returned in 1996. Our review of the record discloses no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7105

WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Warden or Commissioner; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BIANCA; SERGEANT

ANDERSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DICKUS; OTHER

STAFF MEMBERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-993-DKC)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William Allen Legg filed an untimely notice of appeal. We

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing

notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have

thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of

appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district

court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on April 15, 1998; Legg’s

notice of appeal was filed on July 23, 1998, which is beyond the

thirty-day appeal period. Legg’s failure to note a timely appeal

or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal and deny Legg’s motion for appointment of

counsel. 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
#### West Broadway Glass Company, Appellant, v I.T.M. Bar Inc., Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 629]

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (Freedman and Davis, JJ.; McCooe, J. P., dissenting in part), entered on or about December 20, 1996, affirming a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 21, 1995, which dismissed the petition in this commercial rent nonpayment proceeding, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remanding to the trial court for an assessment of damages resulting from the landlord’s breach of lease, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Severe water/sewer problems existed from the commencement of the lease in October 1993, inhibiting the tenant’s renovation of the premises and delaying its opening of a bar and restaurant. Full rent abatements were negotiated through October 1994, but the problem persisted. This summary nonpayment proceeding seeks recovery of rent ($18,675) for the period since the last stipulated abatement. The case went to trial on the tenant’s affirmative defenses of constructive eviction and breach of lease.

There was no constructive eviction here because the tenant never did abandon the premises *(see, Barash v Pennsylvania Term. Real Estate Corp.,*26 NY2d 77), instead continuing its renovation on assurances from the landlord that the problem would be remedied. Nonetheless, as the trial court noted, there was a breach of the lease due to the landlord’s renting of premises it knew to be untenantable. However, this does not automatically trigger a 100% rent abatement, because a tenant in possession still remains obligated to pay rent. Rather, the tenant’s loss should be the difference between the value of the leased premises as they were intended and the yalue as a result of the breach *(City of New York v Pike Realty Corp.,*247 NY 245). The measure of such damages remains to be determined. *(See, e.g., Greenblott v Catskill Off-Track Betting Corp.,*215 *233AD2d 627; *Ciraolo v Miller,*138 AD2d 443.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Edward E. Plasberg, Petitioner, v State of New York et al., Respondents.

[664 NYS2d 686]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for retroactive membership in respondent New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System.

*682Petitioner was employed by respondent Town of Niskayuna in Schenectady County between May or June 1968 and August 1968 as a seasonable laborer. Although he was eligible to become a member of respondent New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, he did not join at that time. In 1994, pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 803, petitioner requested retroactive membership in the Retirement System. Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging respondent Comptroller’s determination denying his request. Although petitioner’s testimony that he was not advised in 1968 that he was eligible to join the Retirement System satisfied his burden of going forward *(see, Matter of Scanlan v Buffalo Pub. School Sys.,*90 NY2d 662, 677-678; *see also,*Retirement and Social Security Law § 803 [b] [3]), the employer, who averred that petitioner was orally advised of his option to join, provided a rational basis for denying retroactive membership. Specifically, testimony at a hearing revealed that other employees hired at approximately the same time as petitioner and who worked in similar positions were informed of their option to join the Retirement System *(see, Matter of Scanlan v Buffalo Pub. School Sys., supra,*at 678-681). As such, we confirm the Comptroller’s determination.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
**Exhibit 32**Certification of the Principal Executive OfficersPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)We, Morris H. Wheeler, the President and Chief Executive Officer and Robert W. Pawlak, the ChiefFinancial Officer of Cohesant Technologies Inc. (the “Company”), certify that to the best of ourknowledge, based upon a review of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year endedNovember 30, 2006 (the “Report”):(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        /s/ Morris H. Wheeler   Morris H. Wheeler   President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

**DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS**

 

Non-employee directors of Quest Software, Inc. receive an annual retainer of $30,000 for serving on the Board of Directors,and are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred by them in attending board and committee meetings. In addition (a) the chairman of our Audit Committee receives an additional $20,000 annual fee and each other member of the Audit Committeereceives an additional $10,000 annual fee; (b) the chairman of our Compensation Committee receives an additional $10,000 annual fee and each other member of the Compensation Committee receives an additional $5,000 annual fee; and (c) thechairman of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an additional $7,500 annual fee and each other member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an additional $5,000 annual fee. 

 

Non-employee directors are permitted to elect to receive the annual board andcommittee fees described above in the form of stock options, in lieu of cash, pursuant to the director fee option grant program in our 1999 Stock Incentive Plan. Non-employee directors also receive options to purchase 50,000 shares of Quest commonstock on the date of their election to the Board of Directors, at an exercise price equal to the fair market value on such date, pursuant to the provisions of the automatic option grant program under our 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (the“Automatic Grant Program”). In addition, non-employee directors who have served on the Board of Directors since the date of the prior year’s annual meeting of shareholders also receive options to purchase 15,000 shares of Quest commonstock pursuant to the Automatic Grant Program on the date of our annual meeting of shareholders, at an exercise price equal to the fair market value on such date.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Susquehanna Media
Co. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
L. Finlayson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ John L. Finlayson
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Innkeepers USA Trust (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Dennis Craven, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 1, 2007
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Bureau of Industry and Security

The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on October 24, 2017, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.

## Agenda

Open Session:

1. Opening remarks and introductions

2. Presentation of papers and comments by the Public

3. Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting

4. Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations

5. Other business

                    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at                     *Yvette.Springer@bis.doc.gov,*                     no later than October 17, 2017.                

A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

Yvette Springer,

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017-22193 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-JT-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                           2,761
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                        71
<INVENTORY>                                      1,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,655
<PP&E>                                          57,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,979
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,278
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,431
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  106,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,902
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    953
<INCOME-TAX>                                       830
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 60
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        60
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

Certification by the Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the
Report) by Intervest Bancshares Corporation (the Company), the undersigned, as the principal executive and principal financial officers of the Company, 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 our knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Lowell S. Dansker

Lowell S. Dansker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive
Officer)

March 10, 2011

/s/ John J. Arvonio

John J. Arvonio, Chief Financial and Accounting
Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

March 10, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 23(b)**

 

Inability to obtain consent of prior year auditor 

 

There may be risks and stockholders’ recovery may be limited as a result of the Company’s prior use of Arthur Andersen LLP as the Company’s independentpublic accounting firm. On June 15, 2002, Arthur Andersen LLP was convicted for obstruction of justice charges. Arthur Andersen LLP audited the Company’s financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2001. On August 2, 2002, ArthurAndersen LLP was dismissed as the Company’s independent public accountants and on August 2, 2002, Deloitte & Touche LLP was hired as the Company’s independent auditors for the 2002 fiscal year. Because the former audit partner andmanager have left Arthur Andersen LLP, the Company was not able to obtain the written consent of Arthur Anderson LLP as required by Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act). Accordingly, investors will not be able to sue ArthurAndersen LLP pursuant to Section 11(a)(4) of the Securities Act and therefore, may have their recovery limited as a result of the lack of consent.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2974 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2974

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals 
 eligible for veterans health benefits to contribute to health savings 
                               accounts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2009

Mr. Campbell (for himself, Mr. Buyer, and Mr. Brown of South Carolina) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals 
 eligible for veterans health benefits to contribute to health savings 
                               accounts.

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

SECTION 1. ALLOWANCE OF INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR VETERANS HEALTH 
              BENEFITS TO CONTRIBUTE TO HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 223(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to defining eligible individual) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Special rule for individuals eligible for 
                veterans health benefits.--For purposes of subparagraph 
                (A)(ii), an individual shall not be treated as covered 
                under a health plan described in such subparagraph 
                merely because the individual receives periodic 
                hospital care or medical services under any law 
                administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Lucia Ortiz, Petitioner, v New York City Housing Authority et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 120]

—Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority dated September 2, 1992, which terminated petitioner’s public housing tenancy upon a finding of nondesirability, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Carmen Ciparick, JJ, entered July 14, 1993), dismissed, without costs.

The charges of nondesirability based on the sale and possession of illegal drugs in or from the subject apartment by petitioner and several members of her household over a period of several years were supported by substantial evidence, *87consisting of the testimony of police officers who arrested petitioner in the apartment and other police officers who participated in the execution of search warrants at the apartment. In light of the evidence adduced at the hearing of the long-term use of petitioner’s apartment as a base for drug dealing, and the absence of a credible defense to the charges, the penalty of termination was amply warranted *(compare, Matter of Spand v Franco,*242 AD2d 210). We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13980) pertaining to the 2005 Long-TermIncentive Plan of Cohesant Technologies Inc. and Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-67127)pertaining to the Employee 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan of Cohesant Technologies Inc. of our reportdated February 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of CohesantTechnologies Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended November 30, 2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPIndianapolis, Indiana