alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 4002** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. SANDY JAMES OATES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00137

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : August 31, 2015 Decided: October 1, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, Nort h Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sandy James Oates appeal s his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 9 24(a)(2) (2012). Finding no error, we affirm. Oates argues that the district court erroneously applied the kidnapping cross

- reference, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2X1.1(a), 2A4.1(a) , (b)(3) (2013), in determining the advisory Sent encing Guidelines range . Upon review of the record and careful consideration of the parties’ arguments on appeal , we conclude that the district court correctly found that Oates possessed a firearm in connection with the commission of a kidnapping under No rth Carolina law. The district court thus did not err in applying the kidnapping

cross - reference. See United States v. Davis , 679 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10823 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus STEPHANIE GUERRERO CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-78-ALL-C

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Stephanie Guerrero Cruz, former federal prisoner # 24616- 180, appeals the 18-month sentence she received after her term of supervised release was revoked. Given that Cruz has been released from prison and is not serving a term of supervised release, her appeal is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, 12-18 (1998); United States v. Clark , 193 F.3d 845, 847-48 (5th Cir. 1999).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
### Swanson, Brian (OST)
From: Sent:, To: 

### Cc: Subject:



### Mr. Swanson, Dale Harrison <deharrison@printpack.com> Wednesday, September 05, 2012 8:51 AM Swanson, Brian (OST); Devany, Dennis (OST) jbrauer@newnorth.net; rhiarpt@newnorth.net EAS Rhinelander Wisconsin Airport



### Thank you for your 31 Augustvoice mail inresponse to myrequest to comment onEssential Air Servicefor Rhinelander, Wisconsin I 

### OneidaCounty Airport. PrintpackInc, a large manufacturing firm located in Rhinelander since 1987, frequently uses services ofthe Rhinelander airport for travel to companyheadquarters in Atlanta, Georgia as well as to 19 other company locations. The airport canprovide a valuablebusiness service critical to the success ofour $72 million Rhinelanderexpansionproject which will start in mid September 2012. Printpackencourages timely selection ofa carrier orcarriers which can secure agreements with DeltaAirlines for reliable service via Milwaukee and Minneapolis/ St. Paul to serve Rhinelander I 

### Onieda CountyAirport. Regards,
Oa!e Harrison Inc 12800 Overlook 404.460.7307 i C: 404.808.1291

### ~

### L.::lt~ I GA 30339 404.696.1205

NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain

legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by electronic mail, and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.

1
#### First National Trust Association *v.*Andrew Daruka et al.

*Noel R. Newman,*in support of the petition.

*Stephen R. Griffin,*in opposition.

Decided January 21, 1993

The defendant Ann Daruka’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 913 (AC 11006), is denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.360 What records must I keep to support my calculations of royalty or fees under this subpart? If you determine royalties or direct use fees for your geothermal resource under this subpart, you must retain all data relevant to the determination of the royalty value or the fee you paid. Recordkeeping requirements are found at part 1212 of this chapter. ( a ) You must be able to show: ( 1 ) How you calculated the royalty value or fee you reported, including all allowable deductions; and
( 2 ) How you complied with this subpart.
( b ) Upon request, you must submit all data to ONRR. You must comply with any such requirement within the time ONRR specifies.
### **CHAPTER 13—SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD**

#### I—ESTABLISHMENT 1

Sec.
1301.
Establishment of Board
1302.
Functions.
1303.
Administrative provisions.
1304.
Reports.
1305.
Authorization of appropriations.
1306.
Reporting official action.

#### II—ADMINISTRATIVE 1

1321.
Powers.
1322.
Board action.
1323.
Service of notice in Board proceedings.
1324.
Service of process in court proceedings.
1325.
Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council.
1326.
Authority of the Inspector General.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2015**—Pub. L. 114–110, §§3(a)(1), (2), 10, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2228, 2233, renumbered chapter 7 of this title as this chapter and amended analysis generally, substituting items 1301 to 1306 and 1321 to 1326 for former items 701 to 706 and 721 to 727, respectively.

1  So in original. Does not conform to subchapter heading since word "SUBCHAPTER" does not appear.
----

Picture Studies
§ 578.97 Program income. ( a ) *Defined.* Program income is the income received by the recipient or subrecipient directly generated by a grant-supported activity.
( b ) *Use.* Program income earned during the grant term shall be retained by the recipient, and added to funds committed to the project by HUD and the recipient, used for eligible activities in accordance with the requirements of this part. Costs incident to the generation of program income may be deducted from gross income to calculate program income, provided that the costs have not been charged to grant funds.
( c ) *Rent and occupancy charges.* Rents and occupancy charges collected from program participants are program income. In addition, rents and occupancy charges collected from residents of transitional housing may be reserved, in whole or in part, to assist the residents from whom they are collected to move to permanent housing.
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

RYAN T. ARION. 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JIM SALMONSEN, Warden, 

Respondent. 

OP 22-0192 HLL:j 

MAY 0 9 2022 

Bovven Greertw000 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State rtf rytt,ntarta 

ORDER 

Ryan T. Arion has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Upon review, we 

deem it appropriate to require a response to his Petition. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that that the Attorney General or counsel for the Department of 

Correction is GRANTED thirty days from the date of this Order in which to prepare, file, 

and serve a written response to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus together with 

appropriate documentary exhibits. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to 

Ryan T. Arion personally. 

DATED this feday of May, 2022. 

05/09/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0192
Opinion filed February 3, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-21-00204-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF D.Q., JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 318th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FM67512

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

This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the 

parental rights of the parents of D.Q., Jr. See TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West 

Supp. 2021). The mother filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a 

supporting brief in which she professionally and conscientiously examines the 

record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal presents no issues of 

arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation 

of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 

573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light of a holding by 
2

the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “may be 

premature” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this 

case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that 

“appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that 

satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28. 

Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the 

motion to withdraw. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the reporter’s

record in this cause and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.

Counsel also informed Appellant of her right to review the record and file a pro se

response to counsel’s brief. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied her

duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. 

We note that Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders

brief and motion to withdraw. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and 

Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree 

that the appeal is frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motion to 

withdraw that was filed by Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 

S.W.3d at 27. 

Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial 

court’s order of termination. 

PER CURIAM

February 3, 2022

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.600 General requirements.

Well-workover operations must be conducted in a manner to protect against harm or damage to life (including fish and other aquatic life), property, natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) including any mineral deposits (in areas leased and not leased), the National security or defense, or the marine, coastal, or human environment. In addition to the requirements of this subpart, you must also follow the applicable requirements of subpart G of this part.

[81 FR 26021, Apr. 29, 2016]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

JAMIE MIZRAHI, CHAR MIZRAHI and SCOTT MIZRAHI , Appellant s ,

v.

PPS ADVISORS, INC. and LA WRENCE N. PASSARETTI , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 85

[ March 30, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ircuit Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Fabienne E. Fahnestock

, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE18

- 020175 (18).

Benjamin C. Hassebrock and Taynah Diniz

- Alvez of Ver Ploeg & Marino,
P.A.

, Miami

, for appellants

.

Andrew Thomson of Baritz & Colman LLP

, Boca Raton

, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH , C.J., D AMOORGIAN and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

January 5, 2024

SC-2023-0856

Ex parte D.S. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT 

OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: D.S. v. L.T.)(Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court: JU22-882.01; Civil Appeals: CL-2023-0256).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on January 5, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Wise, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Sellers, 

Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
**Exhibit 12**

 

**NEENAH PAPER, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

**STATEMENT REGARDING THE COMPUTATION OF**

**RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

**(Dollars in millions, except ratio of earnings to fixed charges)**

** **
| ** **                                                         | ** ** | **Year Ended December 31,** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                         | ** ** | **2010**                                   | ** ** | **2009** | ** ** | **2008** | ** ** | **2007** | ** ** | **2006** | ** ** |
| Income (loss) from   continuing operations before taxes            |       | $                                          | 34.8       |   | $ | (6.8 | ) | $ | (41.9 | ) | $ | 28.5 |   | $ | 29.2 |   |
| Plus fixed charges                                                 |       | 21.7                                       |       | 24.2 |   | 26.0 |   | 26.1 |   | 19.8 |   |
| Numerator                                                          |       | $                                          | 56.5       |   | $ | 17.4 |   | $ | (15.9 | ) | $ | 54.6 |   | $ | 49.0 |   |
| Interest expense   (including amortization of debt issuance costs) |       | $                                          | 20.5       |   | $ | 23.4 |   | $ | 25.0 |   | $ | 25.5 |   | $ | 19.4 |   |
| Interest portion   of rent expense (a)                             |       | 1.2                                        |       | 0.8 |   | 1.0 |   | 0.6 |   | 0.4 |   |
| Fixed charges                                                      |       | $                                          | 21.7       |   | $ | 24.2 |   | $ | 26.0 |   | $ | 26.1 |   | $ | 19.8 |   |
|                                                               |       |                                       |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings   to fixed charges (b)                           |       | 2.6x                                       |       | — |   | — |   | 2.1x |   | 2.5x |   |

 

----

(a)          Represents one-third of rent expense which is deemed to be the financing portion of the lease agreements.

(b)         Fixed charges exceeded earnings for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 by $6.8 million and $41.9 million, respectively.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH N. ZARSKA,

Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,

District Judge. (MISC-04-50)

Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 30, 2005

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth N. Zarska, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth N. Zarska appeals from the district court’s

orders: (1) denying his motions to quash a summons issued by the

Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and to dismiss the IRS’s action to

enforce the summons, and (2) dismissing the enforcement action on

the IRS’s motion after Zarska complied with the summons. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. United States v. Zarska, No. MISC04-50 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 10, 2004, Dec. 30, 2004 & Feb. 17, 2005).

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
LEASE CONTRACT
 th
 
  Article 1. House and Rent
 th
      Article 2. Term
  Article 3. Deposit




---



##### 



Article 4. Other Charges
     Article 5. Payment Method




---



##### 



Article 6. Term Extension and Renewal
     Article 7. Rights and Obligations of the Parties




---



##### 



Article 8. Default and Claim for Compensation




---



##### 



Article 9. Termination




---



##### 



Article 10. Dispute Resolution
  Article 11. Effectiveness
    Party A: (chop)
    
    Party B: (chop)Legal Representative:
    
    Legal Representative:Date:
    
    Date:
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1903 Acronyms and definitions. Definitions listed in this section apply to this subpart and supersede definitions in API RP 75, Appendices D and E; COS-2-01, COS-2-03, and COS-2-04; and ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198). ( a ) *Acronyms* used frequently in this subpart have the following meanings: *AB* means Accreditation Body,
*ASP* means Audit Service Provider,
*CAP* means Corrective Action Plan,
*COS* means Center for Offshore Safety,
*EPP* means Employee Participation Plan,
*ISO* means International Organization for Standardization,
*JSA* means Job Safety Analysis,
*MODU* means Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit,
*OCS* means Outer Continental Shelf,
*SEMS* means Safety and Environmental Management Systems,
*SWA* means Stop Work Authority,
*USCG* means United States Coast Guard, and
*UWA* means Ultimate Work Authority.
( b ) *Terms* used in this subpart are listed alphabetically as follows: *Accreditation Body (AB)* means a BSEE-approved independent third-party organization that assesses and accredits ASPs.
*Audit Service Provider (ASP)* means an independent third-party organization that demonstrates competence to conduct SEMS audits in accordance with the requirements of this subpart.
*Corrective Action Plan (CAP)* means a scheduled plan to correct deficiencies identified during an audit and that is developed by an operator following the issuance of an audit report.
*Personnel* means direct employee(s) of the operator and contracted workers.
*Ultimate Work Authority (UWA)* means the authority assigned to an individual or position to make final decisions relating to activities and operations on the facility.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 20440, Apr. 5, 2013]
#### Lawrence Loeb et al. *v.*Al-Mor Corporation

(14476)

Peters, C. J., Callahan, Borden, Berdon and Norcott, Js.

Argued October 1

decision released October 27, 1992

*Frank J. Mongillo, Jr.,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Nancy J. Vavra,*with whom, on the brief, was *Milton A. Bemblum,*for the appellee (defendant).

*7Per Curiam.

In this action to quiet title, the appeal challenges the trial court’s interpretation of the deeds and maps on which the plaintiffs, Lawrence Loeb and Allen Loeb, relied to establish their title against the defendant, Al-Mor Corporation. The plaintiffs instituted a complaint in two counts against the defendant, seeking relief on alternate theories of record title and adverse possession. The trial court, after a hearing, rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant on both counts. The plaintiffs appealed from that judgment to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).

Our examination of the record on this appeal, and the briefs and arguments of the parties, persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. In the circumstances of this case, the interpretation of a stipulation of the parties and of the various contested deeds and maps constituted factual issues properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision filed by the trial court. *Loeb*v. *Al-Mor Corporation,*42 Conn. Sup. 279, 615 A.2d 182 (1991). Because that memorandum of decision fully states and meets the arguments raised in the present appeal, we adopt the trial court’s well reasoned decision as a correct statement of the facts and the applicable law on the contested issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained. See *Einbinder*v. *Board of Tax Review,*217 Conn. 240, 242, 584 A.2d 1188 (1991); *Fogg*v. *Wakelee,*196 Conn. 287, 288, 492 A.2d 511 (1985).

The judgment is affirmed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS     ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS  3      ARTICLE 2. SECURITIES INVESTMENT AND CONSULTANCY INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT  3      ARTICLE 3. TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICE FEE  4      ARTICLE 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES  4      ARTICLE 5. CONFIDENTIALITY  4      ARTICLE 6. GOVERNING LAW AND EVENTS OF DEFAULT  4      ARTICLE 7. DISPUTE RESOLUTION  5      ARTICLE 8. EFFECTIVENESS  5      ARTICLE 9. NO SUBSEQUENT OBLIGATION  5      ARTICLE 10. TRANSFER LIMITATION  5      ARTICLE 11. AMENDMENT  5      ARTICLE 12. COUNTERPARTS  5      ARTICLE 13. MISCELLANEOUS  5      EXHIBIT 1 CONTENT OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES  7      EXHIBIT 2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICE FEE  8 
 

 
SECURITIES INVESTMENT AND CONSULTANCY INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT AGREEMENTThis Securities Investment and Consultancy Information and Technical Support Agreement (“thisAgreement”) is entered into in Beijing, the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”) on October 17,2008 between:Party A: Shenzhen Newland Securities Investment and Advisory Co., Ltd.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 as of and
for the periods covered in the Report.
 /s/ Robert B. Nolen, Jr.

Robert B. Nolen, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2007

(Date)
  19
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.104 How may I appeal a decision made under BSEE regulations?

To appeal orders or decisions issued under BSEE regulations in 30 CFR parts 250 to 282, follow the procedures in 30 CFR part 290.