alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-3882WM

_____________ Thomas Hughes, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Michael Groose; * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Defendant, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Karen Cornell; Correctional Medical * Systems, Inc.; Dr. Largaespada, * * Defendants-Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: December 1, 1997

Filed: December 17, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Thomas Hughes appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Karen Cornell and others involved in Hughes's medical care at the Jefferson Cit y Co rrectional Center. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties ' submiss ions, we are convinced the judgment of the district court was correct

. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### §441n. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 441n, comprising section 1022 of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3222 of this title.
### **CHAPTER 3085—NATIONAL WOMEN'S RIGHTS HISTORY PROJECT**

Sec.
308501.
National women's rights history project national registry.
308502.
National women's rights history project partnerships network.
**Exhibit 99 (b)**

**Citizens Financial Corp.**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

I, Thomas K. Derbyshire, Vice President, Treasurer and PrincipalFinancial Officer of Citizens Financial Corp. (the “company”) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:

| 1.     | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the company for the annual period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.                                                                                                                                                   |

 

| Date:_______3/12/03_________ | /s/ THOMAS K. DERBYSHIRE                             |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                           |
|                         | **Vice President, Treasurer Principal Financial Officer** |
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2702

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. LaRhonda Dawnielle Jenkins, also known as LaRonda Jenkins

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa

____________ Submitted: October 23, 2023 Filed: November 2, 2023 [Unpublished]

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

____________ PER CURIAM. LaRhonda Jenkins appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after she pled guilty to perjury. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence. After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jenkins. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. McCauley , 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting when a district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that it abused its discretion in not varying downward further). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
###### Editorial Note on Part 816

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 816 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 816.13 Casing and sealing of drilled holes: General requirements.

Each exploration hole, other drill or borehole, well, or other exposed underground opening shall be cased, sealed, or otherwise managed, as approved by the regulatory authority, to prevent acid or other toxic drainage from entering ground or surface waters, to minimize disturbance to the prevailing hydrologic balance, and to ensure the safety of people, livestock, fish and wildlife, and machinery in the permit area and adjacent area. If these openings are uncovered or exposed by surface mining activities within the permit area they shall be permanently closed, unless approved for water monitoring, or otherwise managed in a manner approved by the regulatory authority. Use of a drilled hole or borehole or monitoring well as a water well must meet the provisions of § 816.41 of this part. This section does not apply to holes solely drilled and used for blasting.

[44 FR 15395, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 14822, Apr. 5, 1983; 48 FR 43990, Sept. 26, 1983; 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017]
#### § 941.955 Certification of blasters.

Part 955 of this chapter, *Certification of Blasters in Federal Program States and on Indian Lands,* shall apply to the training, examination and certification of blasters for surface coal mining and reclamation operations.

[51 FR 19462, May 29, 1986]
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. HOME DAIRIES CO.

No. 14039.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 2, 1954.

George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., Irving M. Herman, New York City, Robert H. Hurt, Washington, D. C., Patrick H. Walker, Seattle, Wash., Attys., National Labor Relations Board, for petitioner.

Eli A.' Weston, Boise, Idaho, for respondent.

Before HEALY and ORR, Circuit Judges, and LEMMON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding by the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of an order directed against respondent. In substance the Board, in agreement with the trial examiner, found that respondent, upon learning of organizational activity among its employees, instituted a program of interrogation, threats of reprisal, and promises or grants of benefits, designed to interfere with and restrain this activity, in violation of § 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. The Board further found that respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organization of its employees in violation of § 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. It entered the usual cease and desist order, and as affirmative action required withdrawal of recognition' from the employees’ committee which it had undertaken to dominate, and to post the usual notices.

The finding as regards interference, restraint, and coercion of the employees is substantially supported by the evidence considered as a whole. While evidence of the domination of the employees’ committee is not particularly strong, we think there is enough to support the Board’s finding and order in this respect also.

Accordingly the usual decree enforcing the Board’s order will be entered.
#### In re LEVY. In the matter of the estate of Philip Levy, deceased.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
#### Regina Boer, plaintiff in error, v. Albert Revesz and Emery Szoeke, defendants in error.

Gen. No. 29,454.

Assumpsit for money due. Dismissed for want of prosecution. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. J. Fred Gilstcr, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 3, 1925.

Fassett, Abbott & Hughes, for plaintiff in error; John E. Hughes, of counsel.

Lester L. Bauer, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
Application to Amend Section 333 Exemption No. 12738 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1666

October 12, 2015

Petitioner: 

Michael C. Carlini

274 Orchard View Terrace

Medford, OR 97504

Cell: 541.326.1745 

Email: michael.carlini@gmail.com

Greetings, 

By letter from the FAA dated September 3, 2015, an exemption was granted to Michael C. 

Carlini for relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 12738 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA- 2015-1666. 

Michael C. Carlini hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to include DJI 

Phantom 3 models. Relevant facts and reasoning are: 

 DJI has announced they will discontinue the Phantom 2 Vision+ model which was approved 

in Hawk Arial’s Exemption No. 12738. 

 Size, weight and performance specification of the DJI Phantom 3 (“P3”) are substantially

similar to those of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ (“P2”) in all relevant respects: 

o Gross weight: P3=1280g; P2=1242g. 

o Diagonal Size (including propellers): P3=590mm; P2=579mm. 

o Maximum Ascent Speed: P3=5m/sec; P2=6m/sec. 

o Maximum Descent Speed: P3=3m/sec; P2=2m/sec. 

o Vertical Hover Accuracy: P3=+/-10cm; P2=+/-80cm. 

o Horizontal Hover Accuracy: P3=+/-1m; P2=+/-2.5m. 

o Maximum Speed: P3=16m/sec; P2=15m/sec. 

 The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 12738 apply

without modification to this application to include the DJI Phantom 3 model in Exemption 

No. 12738. 

The following information manuals and support documents are available for viewing online, but 

were too large to upload to regulations.gov:

o Phantom 3 Release Notes: http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_Release_Note_en_

9.9.pdf

o Phantom 3 Quick Start Guide: http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_Quick_Start_Guide

_en_v1.2.pdf
o Phantom 3 User Manual: http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual_v1.4

_en_0915.pdf

o Phantom 3 Safety Guidelines Disclaimer: http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Safety_Guidelines_Disclaimer_en_201509.pd

f

Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any

additional information that is required. 

Sincerely, 

Michael C. Carlini

Airman Certificate #3571047
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis
J. Allingham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

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


By: /s/ Dennis J. Allingham
---------------------------
Dennis J. Allingham
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
and President

February 13, 2004





..
### Composition and properties of the Pierre Shale and equivalent rocks, northern Great Plains region

By: Leonard Gene SchultzH. A. TourtelotJ. R. GillJ.G. Boerngen

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1064B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### §403q. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 403q, comprising section 17 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, act June 20, 1949, ch. 227, was editorially reclassified as section 3517 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         117,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,135,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,040,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,443,500
<PP&E>                                       2,784,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,649,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,096,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,608,800
<BONDS>                                        759,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,200
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,802,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,096,700
<SALES>                                      5,769,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,849,500
<CGS>                                        4,546,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,344,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                425,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                   153,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            263,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   263,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.49
        

</TABLE>
#### § 922.775 Administrative and judicial review of decisions.

Part 775 of this chapter, *Administrative and Judicial review of Decisions,* shall apply to all decisions on permits.

[52 FR 13811, Apr. 24, 1987]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank A. Clavarelli, Appellant.

Order reversed, on the law, and the matter remitted to the Bronx County Court for a hearing. The gravamen of defendant’s motion for a writ of error *coram nobis*to set aside a judgment rendered on October 18, 1950, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of the crime of robbery in the *643second degree, is that his plea at the close of the trial was induced and coerced by the positive identification by the chief prosecution witness that defendant was a participant in the robbery. That identification, defendant avers, was based upon the witness’ alleged observation of defendant’s face. It is defendant’s contention that when such identification was made by the witness, the prosecution withheld evidence that the alleged robber wore a mask to conceal his face at the time of the holdup, in the statement filed by the District Attorney under section 342-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recommending the acceptance of defendant’s plea of guilty, there is a statement that the defendant at the time of the commission of the crime wore a mask. Defendant’s claim of inducement and coercion has not been conclusively refuted by the documentary proof. In fact, the disposition in the County Court indicates that the trial record was not available. Defendant is therefore entitled to a hearing *(People*v. *Pieaiotti,*4 N Y 2d 340). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Stevens, JJ.; M. M. Frank, J. deceased.
### SUBCHAPTER II—PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE
§ 819.15 Auger mining: Hydrologic balance. ( a ) Auger mining shall be planned and conducted to minimize disturbances of the prevailing hydrologic balance in accordance with the requirements of §§ 816.41 and 816.42 of this chapter.
( b ) All auger holes, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, shall be— ( 1 ) Sealed within 72 hours after completion with an impervious and noncombustible material, if the holes are discharging water containing acid-or toxic-forming material. If sealing is not possible within 72 hours, the discharge shall be treated commencing within 72 hours after completion to meet applicable effluent limitations and water-quality standards until the holes are sealed; and
( 2 ) Sealed with an impervious noncombustible material, as contemporaneously as practicable with the augering operation, as approved by the regulatory authority, if the holes are not discharging water containing acid-or toxic-forming material.
( c ) Auger holes need not be sealed with an impervious material so as to prevent drainage if the regulatory authority determines that— ( 1 ) The resulting impoundment of water may create a hazard to the environment or public health or safety, and
( 2 ) The drainage from the auger holes will— ( i ) Not pose a threat of pollution to surface water, and
( ii ) Comply with the requirements of §§ 816.41 and 816.42 of this chapter.
§ 1630.30 Class 3-A: Registrant deferred because of hardship to dependents. ( a ) In accord with part 1642 of this chapter any registrant shall be classified in Class 3-A: ( 1 ) Whose induction would result in extreme hardships to his wife when she alone is dependent upon him for support; or
( 2 ) Whose deferment is advisable because his child(ren), parent(s), grrandparent(s), brother(s), or sister(s) is dependent upon him for support; or
( 3 ) Whose deferment is advisable because his wife and his child(ren), parent(s), grandparent(s), brother(s), or sister(s) are dependent upon him for support.
( b ) The classification of each registrant in Class 3-A will not be granted for a period longer than 365 days.
[52 FR 24456, July 1, 1987]
Exhibit 31.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(A separate certification is required for each officer)

 

I, Olivier Meisel, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BNP U.S. Funding L.L.C.; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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;

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;

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within these entities, particularly during the period in which the report is being prepared;

b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 15, 2005

| /s/ Olivier Meisel |
|--------------------|

                Title: President and Director

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|