alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

REVISED June 23, 2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11253

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN WANNAMAKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-184-1

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Wannamaker appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and

securities fraud, five counts of wire fraud, one count of

securities fraud, five counts of money laundering, and four

counts of engaging in illegal monetary transactions. He argues

that the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable. 

The district court stated that it had considered the factors set

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and gave, inter alia, the following
reasons for the sentence: (1) the sentence was within the

applicable guidelines sentencing range for the offenses

(§ 3553(a)(4)) and (2) Wannamaker pleaded guilty to all 16 counts

of the indictment without a plea agreement and (3) he accepted

responsibility for the offenses. The district court also heard

and considered the testimony of Wannamaker’s wife and one of the

victims of Wannamaker’s offenses. Wannamaker has not shown that

the district court misapplied the Guidelines, failed to consider

the § 3553(a) factors, failed to give reasons for the sentence,

or considered improper factors in imposing the sentence. 

Therefore, Wannamaker has not shown that the sentence imposed by

the district court was unreasonable. See United States v. Mares,

402 F.3d 511, 518-20 (5th Cir. 2005).

Wannamaker also argues that the language in United States v.

Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2005), is improper. We have not,

however, relied on Alonzo and its rebuttable presumption of

reasonableness in deciding this appeal.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27.8:  RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's May 31, 1997 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000016918
<NAME> CANANDAIGUA BRANDS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    315,042
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               496,516
<PP&E>                                         347,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                 106,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,006,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          226,184
<BONDS>                                        328,969
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           215
<OTHER-SE>                                     380,709
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,006,414
<SALES>                                        306,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               306,011
<CGS>                                          222,903
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,404
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,956
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,448
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 11.01

                               GILMAN AND CIOCIA
                               EPS CALCULATION
                                JUNE 30, 1996
                                      



<TABLE>
<S>                                        <C>           <C>         <C>           <C>                     <C>          <C>
YEAR END CALCULATION:                      

WEIGHTED SHARES OUTSTANDING:
     Opening                               5,634,587     100.00%     5,634,587
      8/18/95                                 13,960      86.85%        12,124
     10/12/95                                  3,688      69.59%         2,566
     12/15/95                                 25,905      54.25%        14,053
      1/19/96                               (127,558)     44.66%       (56,964)                            
                                           ---------     ------      ---------
                                           5,550,582                 5,606,366     Net Income for Year     $534,726
                                           =========                 =========     ----------------------

                                                                                    INTEREST
                                        EQUIVALENT SHARES                            ADDBACK
                                        -----------------                           --------
     1ST QTR                                            0                                  0
     2ND QTR                                            0                                  0
     3RD QTR                                    1,238,712                             44,657
     4TH QTR                                            0                                  0
                                                ---------                           --------
                                                1,238,712             309,678         44,657                44,657
                                                                    ---------                            ---------
                                                                    5,916,044                             $579,383      $0.10
                                                                    =========                            ==========     =====

</TABLE>
MARCH 15, 2006 FORMAT

Form Approved

OMB No. 0930-0269

Expiration Date 09-30-2007

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per response; including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information to SAMHSA Reports 

Clearance Officer, Room 7-1045, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The control number for this 

project is 0930-0269

DATE: |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__| START TIME: |__|__| : |__|__| END TIME: |__|__| : |__|__|

CT_MO CT_DY CT_YR CT_START CT_END

MOTHER’S ID# |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| CHILD’S ID# |__|__|

CT_MOM CT_CHLD

EVALUATION PHASE: Intake |__|1 3-months |__|3 6-months |__|4 Discharge |__|6

CT_INTERVIEW_TYPE

PERSON COMPLETING |_______________| GRANT# TI |__|__|__|__|__|

CT_INTERVIEWER CT_SITE

PPW

CRAFFT

Please check a YES or NO response to each of the following questions.

 Yes No 

CT_CAR C Have you ever ridden in a car driven by someone (including yourself)

who was “high” or had been using alcohol or drugs?............................. Yes 1 No 0

CT_RELAX R Do you ever use alcohol or drugs to relax, feel better about yourself,

or fit in?................................................................................................ Yes 1 No 0

CT_ALONE A Do you ever use alcohol or drugs while you are by yourself, alone?....... Yes 1 No 0

CT_FORGET F Do you ever forget things you did while using alcohol or drugs? ............ Yes 1 No 0

CT_FRIENDS F Do your family or friends ever tell you that you should cut down on

your drinking or drug use? .................................................................... Yes 1 No 0

CT_TROUBLE T Have you ever gotten into trouble while you were using

alcohol or drugs?.................................................................................. Yes 1 No 0

©Children’s Hospital Boston, 2001

Reproduced with permission from the Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research,

CeASAR, Children’s Hospital Boston,

For more information, contact info@CRAFT.org or visit www.crafft.org

CT_2006.00

2 0
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          40,475
<SECURITIES>                                    92,558
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,808
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,166
<INVENTORY>                                      1,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,603
<PP&E>                                          86,738
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,364
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,048
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                     151,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,792
<SALES>                                        110,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,545
<CGS>                                           11,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,544
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,592
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,952
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,952
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
# C_2007056EN.01004101.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/41

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Tsarnavas v Commission

(Case F-125/05) (1)

1

(Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits of officials in different services - Application for damages - Admissibility - Reasonable period - Lawyers' fees - Pre-litigation procedure - Non-material harm)

(2007/C 56/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassilios Tsarnavas (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

The applicant is seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decisions of 1 April 2005 and 7 October 2005, dismissing its applications for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered under the 1998 and 1999 promotion procedures and, secondly, an order that the defendant is to pay damages valued on an equitable basis at EUR 72 000 in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay Mr Tsarnavas EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm; |
| --- | --- |

1.

orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay Mr Tsarnavas EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm;

| 2. | dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Mr Tsarnavas; |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Mr Tsarnavas;

| 4. | orders Mr Tsarnavas to bear two thirds of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

orders Mr Tsarnavas to bear two thirds of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006, p. 54.

1

---
**Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP)**

**Training Feedback Form for Trainers and Leadership**

**CCP Name/Disaster Number: _______________________________________________**

1. The content of this training module included all of the elements necessary for participants to adequately understand and deliver CCP services. 

2. The supporting materials, including slides, handouts, and instructor’s notes, facilitated effective delivery of module content. 

3. The content of the training module was thorough and well organized.

4. The material was adequately covered in the time allowed.

5. The *Exercises and Trainer’s Tips* booklet contained activities that effectively facilitated learning. 

1

6. The overall training session was well received by the participants.

7. What elements of this training session were **most** effective in facilitating learning?

8. What, if anything, would you change to improve the content or organization of the training materials? 

Thank you for your valued feedback. Please return this form and all the participant evaluations to the state CCP director. Remember to inform the state CCP director to send copies of all forms to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Disaster Technical Assistance Center (DTAC) at the following address:

**SAMHSA DTAC**

c/o IQ Solutions 

11300 Rockville Pike 

Suite 901

Rockville, MD 20852

2
§ 1304.212 Waivers. ( a ) Waivers of standards contained in this subpart may be requested when the following minimum criteria are established: ( 1 ) The property is within a preexisting development as defined in § 1304.204(a); and
( 2 ) The proposed shoreline alterations are compatible with surrounding permitted structures and uses within the subdivision or, if there is no subdivision, within the immediate vicinity (one-fourth mile radius).
( b ) In approving waivers of the standards of this subpart C, TVA will consider the following: ( 1 ) The prevailing permitted practices within the subdivision or immediate vicinity; and
( 2 ) The uses permitted under the guidelines followed by TVA before November 1, 1999.
[68 FR 46936, Aug. 7, 2003, as amended at 86 FR 50636, Sept. 10, 2021]
# C_2013129EN.01001201.xml

| 4.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/12

---

Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 1 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd, formerly Anglo Irish Bank Corp. Ltd v Sean Quinn and Others

(Case C-634/11) (1)

1

2013/C 129/21

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 113
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 113 appear at 79 FR 55969, Sept. 18, 2014.

§ 113.33 Mouse safety tests. One of the mouse safety tests provided in this section shall be conducted when such test is prescribed in a Standard Requirement or in the filed Outline of Production for a biological product recommended for animals other than poultry: *Provided,* That if the inherent nature of one or more ingredients makes the biological product lethal or toxic for mice but not lethal or toxic for the animals for which it is recommended, the licensee shall demonstrate the safety of such product by an acceptable test written into such Outline of Production. ( a ) Final container samples of completed product from live virus vaccines shall be tested for safety using young adult mice in accordance with the test provided in this paragraph. ( 1 ) Vaccine prepared for use as recommended on the label shall be tested by inoculating eight mice intraperitoneally or subcutaneously with 0.5 mL (the inoculation volume may be divided among more than one injection site), and the animals observed for 7 days.
( 2 ) If unfavorable reactions attributable to the product occur in any of the mice during the observation period, the serial or subserial is unsatisfactory. If unfavorable reactions which are not attributable to the product occur, the test shall be declared a No Test and may be repeated: *Provided,* That, if the test is not repeated, the serial or subserial shall be declared unsatisfactory.
( b ) Bulk or final container samples of completed product from liquid products, such as but not limited to antiserums and bacterins, shall be tested for safety in accordance with the test provided in this paragraph. ( 1 ) Unless otherwise prescribed in the Standard Requirement or approved in a filed Outline of Production for the product, a 0.5 ml dose shall be injected intraperitoneally or subcutaneously into eight mice and the animals observed for 7 days.
( 2 ) If unfavorable reactions attributable to the product occur in any of the mice during the observation period, the serial or subserial is unsatisfactory. If unfavorable reactions which are not attributable to the product occur, the test shall be declared a No Test and may be repeated: *Provided,* That, if the test is not repeated, the serial or subserial shall be declared unsatisfactory.
[38 FR 34727, Dec. 18, 1973, as amended at 39 FR 16857, May 10, 1974; 72 FR 72564, Dec. 21, 2007]
§ 93.202 Inspection of certain aircraft and other means of conveyance and shipping containers thereon; unloading, cleaning, and disinfection requirements. ( a ) *Inspection:* All aircraft and other means of conveyance (including shipping containers thereon) moving into the United States from any foreign region are subject to inspection without a warrant by properly identified and designated inspectors to determine whether they are carrying any animal, carcass, product or article regulated or subject to disposal under any law or regulation administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for prevention of the introduction or dissemination of any communicable animal disease.
( b ) *Unloading requirements:* Whenever in the course of any such inspection at any port in the United States the inspector has reason to believe that the means of conveyance or container is contaminated with material of animal (including poultry) origin, such as, but not limited to, meat, organs, glands, extracts, secretions, fat, bones, blood, lymph, urine, or manure, so as to present a danger of the spread of any communicable animal disease, the inspector may require the unloading of the means of conveyance and the emptying of the container if he or she deems it necessary to enable him or her to determine whether the means of conveyance or container is in fact so contaminated. The principal operator of the means of conveyance and his or her agent in charge of the means of conveyance shall comply with any such requirement under the immediate supervision of, and in the time and manner prescribed by, the inspector.
( c ) *Cleaning and disinfection:* Whenever, upon inspection under this section, an inspector determines that a means of conveyance or shipping container is contaminated with material of animal origin so as to present a danger of the spread of any communicable animal disease, he or she shall notify the principal operator of the means of conveyance or his or her agent in charge, of such determination and the requirements under this section. The person so notified shall cause the cleaning and disinfection of such means of conveyance and container under the immediate supervision of, and in the time and manner prescribed by, the inspector.
( d ) For purposes of this section, the term “shipping container” means any container of a type specially adapted for use in transporting any article on the means of conveyance involved.
[55 FR 31495, Aug. 2, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 67614, Dec. 30, 1994. Redesignated and amended at 62 FR 56012, 56015, Oct. 28, 1997; 68 FR 6344, Feb. 7, 2003]
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors
                        -------------------------------


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Nutrition For Life International,
Inc.:


     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of Nutrition For Life International, Inc. (No. 33-99366) of our report
dated November 2, 1995, except as to Note 2, which is as of December 8, 1995,
relating to the balance sheet of Nutrition For Life International, Inc. as of
September 30, 1995, and the related statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended
September 30, 1995, which report appears in the September 30, 1996 Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB of Nutrition For Life International, Inc.

 


                                            KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Houston, Texas
January 28, 1997
§ 20.1 Applicability. ( a ) *Without special proceeding for regulation.* Every security issue within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Commission by sections 19 and 20 of the Federal Power Act shall be subject to the provisions of § 20.2, except a security issue by a person organized and operating in a State under the laws of which its security issues are regulated by a State commission, or by any one described in subsection 201(f) of the act. No other security issue within the scope of sections 19 and 20 shall be subject to § 20.2 except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Reservation of possibility of regulation in other cases.* Not later than 10 days prior to any proposed security issuance which is within the scope of section 19 or section 20 of the act, but excepted by paragraph (a) of this section, any person or state entitled to do so under section 19 or section 20, may file a complaint or request in accordance with the applicable rules of the Commission, or the Commission upon its own motion may by order initiate a proceeding, raising the question whether issuance of such security should be subjected by Commission order to the provisions of § 20.2. After notice of such filing or order, and until such request or complaint is denied or dismissed or the proceeding initiated by such order is terminated without subjecting the issuance of the security to the provisions of § 20.2, the security in question shall not be issued except it be issued subject to and in compliance with § 20.2.