alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2972

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Terrance Michael Foy lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

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

____________ Submitted: April 19, 2022 Filed: April 29, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Terrance Foy appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to drug and gun charges, pursuant to a plea agreement that includes an

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging application of the careeroffender enhancement, and arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice; appeal waivers should not be easily voided by courts); see also United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1034 (8th Cir. 2005) (defendant waived right to appeal career offender designation when appeal waiver provided that he waived all rights to appeal imposed sentence and that Guidelines range was not subject to appeal). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
Assessment and Referral Tool Guidance 

What are the Assessment and Referral Tools?

The Adult and Child/Youth Assessment and Referral Tools (ART) are data collection forms that collect

more in-depth information about service recipients than is captured by the Individual/Family Crisis

Counseling Services Encounter Log, Group Encounter Log, and Weekly Tally Sheet. The ARTs are 

intended to assess the need for services beyond the scope of the Crisis Counseling Assistance and

Training Program (CCP) and determine what, if any, referrals CCP staff can provide.

The ART can be administered at any time if the crisis counselor feels the participant is exhibiting distress

or they would benefit from referral to other services. It is recommended that the ART is administered 

during encounters where more than four event reactions or certain risk categories are indicated 

including the following: 

• Family missing/dead

• Friend missing/dead

• Pet missing/dead

• Life was threatened

• Assisted with rescue

• Preexisting physical disability

• Injuries or physically harmed

• Witnessed death/injury

• Past substance use/mental health

problem

• Past trauma

What to know before you administer the ART 

The CCP should have protocols or procedures in place for how a crisis counselor should respond if

serious reactions are indicated while using the ARTs. Many CCPs have team leaders or other staff with a

mental health background administer the tools to ensure that proper assessment and referral is carried 

out.

All crisis counseling staff using the tools should have detailed training and guidance on use of the tool

and when to make a referral for more intensive services. All CCP staff should complete the online 

training available at https://www.samhsa.gov/dtac/ccp-toolkit/ccp-data-forms-trainings.

Prior to administration of the assessment, staff should obtain consent from the participant and provide

an overview of what information is being collected. For administration of the Child/Youth ART, consent 

must be obtained from a parent or other caregiver for the child’s or youth’s participation in the 

assessment and referral process. Even after consent is obtained, data collection for the CCP is still 

anonymous, and no personally identifiable information should be collected by the program.

Prior to use of this tool, the CCP should identify at least one organization or agency that is willing to 

accept referrals from the CCP for more intensive mental health or substance use intervention services.
#### Bella Luskin, Respondent, v. Progress Lumber Co., Inc., Appellant.

Present — Cars-well, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 6 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk March 6 , 2020

1 60 737

JOHN WHEELER

, Plaintiff

- Appellant

, SC: 160 73 7

v COA: 34 4496

Oakland CC : 2017

- 156740

- NO

BUSCH’S INC., and SIMSBURY F/14 LLC

, Defendant s

- Appellee s

. _______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of the application for leave t o appeal is considered, and the

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
§ 490.213 Reporting of targets for the Highway Safety Improvement Program. ( a ) The targets established by the State DOT shall be reported to FHWA in the State's HSIP annual report in accordance with 23 CFR part 924.
( b ) The MPOs shall annually report their established safety targets to their respective State DOT, in a manner that is documented and mutually agreed upon by both parties.
( c ) The MPOs shall report baseline safety performance, VMT estimate and methodology if a quantifiable rate target was established, and progress toward the achievement of their targets in the system performance report in the metropolitan transportation plan in accordance with 23 CFR part 450. Safety performance and progress shall be reported based on the following data sources: ( 1 ) The most recent available Final FARS data for the fatality number. The FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available;
( 2 ) The most recent available Final FARS and MPO VMT estimate for the fatality rate. The FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available;
( 3 ) The most recent available Final FARS data for the non-motorized fatality number. The FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available;
( 4 ) State reported data for the serious injuries number;
( 5 ) State reported data and MPO VMT estimate for the serious injuries rate; and
( 6 ) State reported data for the non-motorized serious injuries number.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements of The Smithfield Companies,
Inc. for the three months ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       7,068,429
<SECURITIES>                                   575,840
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,285,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                    83,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,452,457
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,943,930
<PP&E>                                       9,198,436
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,693,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,687,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,845,859
<BONDS>                                      2,800,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,780,690
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,261,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,687,906
<SALES>                                      4,055,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,074,772
<CGS>                                        2,616,205
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,849,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                278,110
<INCOME-TAX>                                    78,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   200,110
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10161

ANGELO PRIETO, Trustee of the Brett M Davis Insurance Trust; BRETT M DAVIS, Individually Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; JIM ENGRAM, Individually; JIM ENGRAM & ASSOCIATES Defendants - Appellees,

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas

(No. 3:97-CV-2441-L) April 17, 2002 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s granting summary judgment on their various state-law claims and on their federal racketeering amd securities law claims. Under any of these-2-

claims, the limitations period is not longer than four years. Plaintiffs sue for misrepresentations allegedly made in the course of their purchasing an insurance policy in 1983. They claim, however, that Defendants obscured the facts on which they now sue until after the limitations periods ran. The district court, in a comprehensive and well-considered opinion, concluded that Plaintiffs had actual knowledge of Defendants’misrepresentations by 1987 and that Plaintiffs’ claims were timebarred by 1991. We affirm. Both the discovery rule and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment toll applicable statutes of limitations until the claimant discovers or with reasonable diligence should have discovered facts that could support a cause of action. See Colonial Penn Ins. v. Market Planners Ins. Agency , 157 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (5th Cir. 1998)(discussing both rules). A plaintiff need not discover each element of her cause of action before the limitations period begins to run. Instead, it protects her only until she ought to know facts that would lead a reasonable person to investigate the possible existence of a cause of action. In this case, it is not disputed that Plaintiffs by 1987 knew that Defendant Engram’s previous representations that the policy dividends were guaranteed and that the interest rate on policy loans was fixed were false. At that point, the statute of limitations began to run, for Plaintiffs knew they had causes of-3-

action for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, among others. Engram’s continuing insistence that the policy would perform as illustrated in the face of these discoveries cannot again toll the limitations period until the next instance of wrongdoing was discovered. Knowing that Engram had misled them in the past, reasonable claimants in Plaintiffs’ position would sue to have the policy amended in accordance with Engram’s promises. At a minimum, they should have carefully investigated any further promises he made.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0001101816
<NAME>     Peoplesway.com
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,603
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           106,665
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             106,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      318,391
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    15,607
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               106,665
<SALES>                                    198,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           221,112
<CGS>                                      129,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              129,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           104,931
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (13,670)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (13,670)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (13,670)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.010)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.010)


</TABLE>
§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General. ( a ) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action— ( 1 ) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
( 2 ) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
( 3 ) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
( b ) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.
( c ) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-10408 Conference Calendar

__________________ RONALD DEAN LOWE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus WELDON CANTRELL ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 95-CV-1370-TG
- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ronald Dean Lowe, Oklahoma inmate #219027, appeals the dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint concerning the denial of medical care for a pretrial detainee and conspiracy thereof. We have carefully reviewed the record and Lowe's arguments. For essentially the same reasons upon which the district court relied, see Lowe v. Cantrell , No. 3:95-CV-1370-T (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 1996), we detect no abuse of discretion. SeeNo. 96-10408 -2- Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Lowe's remaining arguments, such as the impartiality of the magistrate judge and the propriety of the dismissal without opportunity to amend and before service or discovery, are without merit. This appeal is frivolous and therefore is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Lowe that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Lowe is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 203 

Recognizing the 80th anniversary of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2019 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. MORAN, Mr. 

ROBERTS, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. DAINES, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. SULLIVAN, and 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 80th anniversary of the Aircraft Owners 

and Pilots Association. 

Whereas on May 15, 2019, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘AOPA’’), 

will celebrate 80 years of successfully representing the interests of general aviation pilots and private aircraft ownership across the United States; 

Whereas AOPA was formed on May 15, 1939, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the years leading up to the entry 

of the United States into World War II; 

Whereas AOPA has grown into the largest aviation association in the world; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 203 ATS 

Whereas AOPA has an ongoing legacy of successfully representing the interests of general aviation pilots and private aircraft owners across the United States; 

Whereas general aviation plays an important role in the economic vitality of communities across the United States, 

creating jobs and opportunities for growth throughout 

the United States; 

Whereas approximately 5,000 public-use airports and 15,000 

other landing facilities support the United States general 

aviation fleet of nearly 200,000 aircraft and approximately 600,000 pilots; 

Whereas AOPA tirelessly advocates for and contributes to 

improving the safety of aviation; 

Whereas AOPA is committed to growing the pilot population 

by introducing young people to career opportunities and 

welcoming more women and minorities into aviation; 

Whereas in the 80 years since AOPA was formed the organization has been led by only 5 presidents: Joseph B. 

‘‘Doc’’ Hartranft, John L. Baker, Philip B. Boyer, Craig 

L. Fuller, and Mark R. Baker; and 

Whereas AOPA remains committed to protecting and promoting aviation in the United States: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate, on the occasion of the 

2 80th anniversary of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Asso3 ciation, recognizes the efforts of the association in— 

4 (1) helping to ensure the freedom to fly; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 203 ATS 

1 (2) leaving a lasting legacy for future genera2 tions of aviators. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Ask your doctor about the flu vaccine today!

pregnant women

are at risk for serious

complications from flu

LEARN MORE AT www.cdc.gov/flu or 1-800-CDC-INFO

CS283226B

Vaccination can protect both 

pregnant mothers and their babies 

from flu and flu-related complications.

• Severe illness

• Hospitalization

• Pneumonia
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Financial Statements of The Smithfield Companies, Inc. for
the year ended March 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       9,728,710
<SECURITIES>                                   575,840
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,139,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                    79,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,717,850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,658,236
<PP&E>                                       8,819,855
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,577,974
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,160,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,619,946
<BONDS>                                      2,800,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,488,492
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,252,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,160,488
<SALES>                                     21,195,201
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,275,040
<CGS>                                       13,772,895
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,373,150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,156,710
<INCOME-TAX>                                   695,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,461,710
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,461,710
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael J. Farrell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CellStar Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



/s/ Michael J. FarrellMichael J. Farrell, Executive Vice President of
Finance


Date: March 30, 2006