alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(February 2, 1961)

#### Hugh Begley, Jr., Respondent, v. Ruth Begley, Appellant.

Oral motion by the Protestant Council of the City of N. Y., for leave to file a brief as *amicus curia,*granted. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Hawks
Industries, Inc. 2nd Qtr. 1997 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such 10Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000015678
<NAME> HAWKS INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,000
<SECURITIES>                                   300,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  452,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               836,000
<PP&E>                                       4,374,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,173,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,494,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,081,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       270,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,872,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,494,000
<SALES>                                      1,090,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,102,000
<CGS>                                          983,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,235,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (134,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (134,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (134,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RYAN FRANK BONNEAU,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-30106

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00257-MO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 15, 2016** 

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Ryan Frank Bonneau appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for conspiracy to

possess and distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Bonneau’s

FILED

MAR 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Bonneau filed a pro se supplemental

opening brief and also submitted a reply brief on December 7, 2015, which we

direct the Clerk to file. No answering brief has been filed. 

Bonneau waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with three

exceptions not applicable here. Our independent review of the record pursuant to

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the

validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.

2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

To the extent that Bonneau’s pro se arguments fall outside the scope of the

waiver, we reject them. Contrary to his contention, the district court properly

denied his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 because there was

no error in the judgment, which is consistent with the sentence to which the parties

agreed in the plea agreement. We decline to address Bonneau’s claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman,

642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

Bonneau’s motion to expedite is denied as moot. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 15-30106
#### Belday Corporation v. Acme Air Appliance Co., Inc.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal-and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before November 3, 1960, with notice of argument for November 15, 1960, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before November 9, 1960. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Yalente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
16-2322 Anderson v. Rehmer 

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JA NUARY 1, 2007, IS PE RMITTED AND IS GOVERNE D BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25 th day of August, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________ Francis Anderson, Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v. 16-2322
Patricia Rehmer, Suing in her official capacity, Helene Vartelas , Suing in her official capacity, Scott Semple, Suing in his official capacity, Anne Cournoyer, Suing in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees .

_____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Francis Anderson, pro se, Newtown, CT.2 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Jacqueline S. Hoell, Stephen R. Strom, Assistant Attorneys General, for George Jepsen, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Connecticut (Bolden, J .).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Appellant Francis Anderson is cu rrently serving a sentence in a Connecticut prison. He has previously been confined in a Connecticut psyc hiatric facility and has filed numerous lawsuits. Proceeding pro se, Anderson appeals the distri ct court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 complaint because the district court concluded th at the only relief sought, a preliminary injunction (sought in the complaint and in a se ries of motions), had previously been denied. An appeal from the denial of those motions was affirmed. See Anderson v. Rehmer , No. 15-3569 (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2015). We assume the parties = familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review sua sponte dismissals de novo

. See Giano v. Goord , 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001). Anderson’s transfer to a new facility prevents him from s eeking either injunctive or declaratory relief against offi cials of his prior facility. See Shepherd v. Goord , 662 F.3d 603, 610 (2d Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
### §7643. Distribution of farmers' bulletins

In the distribution of farmers' bulletins, which shall be adapted to the interests of the people of the different sections of the country, an equal proportion of four-fifths shall be delivered to or sent out under the addressed franks furnished by Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress, as such Senators, Representatives, or Delegates shall direct: Provided, That the Secretary of Agriculture shall notify Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress of the title and character of each such bulletin, with the total number to which each Senator, Representative, and Delegate may be entitled for such distribution; and on the face of the envelope inclosing said bulletins shall be printed the title of each bulletin contained therein.

(June 30, 1906, ch. 3913, 34 Stat. 690.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 417 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section was enacted as part of act June 30, 1906, ch. 3913, and not as part of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, which in part comprises this chapter.

Section is derived from an Appropriation Act for the Department of Agriculture, 1907. The last proviso of section relating to farmers' bulletins not called for in quotas of Senators and Representatives was omitted from the Code as obsolete in view of Attorney General's opinion, 27 Op. Atty. Gen. 288.
EXHIBIT 52 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 954-1 Filed: 09/19/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:33770
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Financial AidFINANCIAL AID PROFESSIONALS

The 2012 Federal Campus-Based Programs Data Book provides fiscal information and recipient data for the 2010-11 award year and institutional allocation data for the 2012-13 award year.  The Federal Campus-Based Programs consist of the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), the Federal Work-Study (FWS), and the Federal Perkins Loan programs.  These data were generated from the institutional data file, current as of April 1, 2012, the Fiscal Operations Report for 2010-11 and Application to Participate for 2012-13 (FISAP).

This report is divided into three sections:
                -  Allocations of Program Funds to Participating Institutions for Award Year 2012-13; 
                -  Fiscal Data Reported by Participating Institutions for Award Year 2010-11; and
                -  Student Recipient Data Reported by Participating Institutions for Award Year 2010-11. 

Included in this report are statistical tables providing funding levels, administrative costs, and default data by state and institutional type and control, and other essential fiscal and recipient data.

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Donald Conner at (202) 502-7818, or e-mail donald.conner@ed.gov.

Office of Policy, Planning, & InnovationOffice of Postsecondary Education

Federal Campus-Based Programs Data Book 2012(zip format, 243K)

## I. Allocation Data - Award Year 2012-13

| History of Funding and Awards                                  | Download Excel Sheet (59K) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Participating Institutions by Type and Control                 | Download Excel Sheet (26K) |
| Comparison of 2012-13 and 2011-12 Allocations                  | Download Excel Sheet (28K) |
| Final 2012-13 Allocations - State Listings by Type and Control | Download Excel Sheet (70K) |
| Under-Utilization Penalty - State Listing                      | Download Excel Sheet (34K) |

## II. Fiscal Data - Award Year 2010-11

### Administrative Expense Allowance

| National Summaries by Type and ControlState Listing | Download Excel Sheet (37K) |
|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|

### Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG)

| Fiscal Data | Download Excel Sheet (60K) |
|-------------|----------------------------|

### Federal Work-Study (FWS)

| Fiscal Data                  | Download Excel Sheet (61K) |
|------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Job Location and Development | Download Excel Sheet (42K) |
| Community Service Activities | Download Excel Sheet (41K) |
| Reading Tutor Activities     | Download Excel Sheet (43K) |
| Math Tutor Activities        | Download Excel Sheet (43K) |
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 487 Filed: 04/22/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:27504
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 487 Filed: 04/22/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:27505
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO CHICO'S FAS, INC.
                      1993 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


      WHEREAS, CHICO'S FAS, INC. (the "Company") has previously adopted the
Chico's FAS, Inc. 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, a First Amendment thereto,
a Second Amendment thereto and a Third Amendment thereto (collectively, the
"Plan"); and

      WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.4 of the Plan, the Company's Board of
Directors has retained the right to amend the Plan in certain respects without
the approval of the stockholders of the Company; and

      WHEREAS, the Company's Board of Directors deems it advisable and in the
best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan to modify
the definition of Fair Market Value and to eliminate the provisions relating to
payroll deductions and has determined that the amendments do not require the
approval of the stockholders of this Company.

      NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as
follows:

      1. Section 2.1 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:

                  2.1   Reserved


      2. Section 2.9 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:

                  2.9 "Fair Market Value" of the shares of Common Stock shall
            mean the closing price, on the date in question (or, if no shares
            are traded on such day, on the next preceding day on which shares
            were traded), of the Common Stock on the principal securities
            exchange in the United States on which such stock is listed, or if
            such stock is not listed on a securities exchange in the United
            States, the closing price on such day in the over-the- counter
            market as reported by the National Association of Security Dealers
            Automated Quotation System (Nasdaq), or Nasdaq's successor, or if
            not reported on Nasdaq, the fair market value of such stock as
            determined by the Committee in good faith and based on all relevant
            factors.


      3. Article 7 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended to
read as follows:


                                   ARTICLE 7

                                   Reserved
17.703 Policy. ( a ) A DoD acquisition official may request a nondefense agency to conduct an acquisition on behalf of DoD in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold *only if* the head of the nondefense agency conducting the acquisition on DoD's behalf has certified that the agency will comply with applicable procurement requirements for that fiscal year except when waived in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
( b ) A nondefense agency is compliant with applicable procurement requirements if the procurement policies, procedures, and internal controls of the nondefense agency applicable to the procurement of supplies and services on behalf of DoD, and the manner in which they are administered, are adequate to ensure the compliance of the nondefense department or agency with— ( 1 ) The Federal Acquisition Regulation and other laws and regulations that apply to procurements of supplies and services by Federal agencies; and
( 2 ) Laws and regulations that apply to procurements of supplies and services made by DoD through other Federal agencies, including DoD financial management regulations, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), DoD class deviations, and the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI). (The DFARS, DoD class deviations, and PGI are accessible at: *http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars*).
( c ) Within 30 days of the beginning of each fiscal year, submit nondefense agency certifications of compliance to the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting at: Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), Defense Pricing and Contracting, Contract Policy, Room 3B938, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington DC 20301-3060.
( d ) The DoD acquisition official, as defined at 17.701, shall provide to the servicing nondefense agency contracting officer any DoD-unique terms, conditions, other related statutes, regulations, directives, and other applicable requirements for incorporation into the order or contract. In the event there are no DoD-unique requirements beyond the FAR, the DoD acquisition official shall so inform the servicing nondefense agency contracting officer in writing. Nondefense agency contracting officers are responsible for ensuring support provided in response to DoD's request complies with paragraph (b) of this section.
( e ) Waiver. The limitation in paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to the acquisition of supplies and services on behalf of DoD by a nondefense agency during any fiscal year for which the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainmenthas determined in writing that it is necessary in the interest of DoD to acquire supplies and services through the nondefense agency during the fiscal year. The written determination shall identify the acquisition categories to which the waiver applies.
( f ) Nondefense agency certifications, waivers, and additional information are available at *http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/interagency_acquisition.html .*
[77 FR 69722, Nov. 20, 2012, as amended at 78 FR 37685, June 21, 2013; 84 FR 19846, May 6, 2019]
#### 16.301 General.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

In connection with the quarterly report
of Chase General Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Barry M. Yantis,
President and Chief Executive 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 to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                  |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|February 11, 2011 |  |  |  | LOGO                                 
|Date              |  |  |  | By: Barry M. Yantis                  
|                  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



27
#### Donald E. Smith, Respondent, v. Consolidated Foods Corporation, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario Trial Term for plaintiff in an action for breach of contract. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         337,682
<SECURITIES>                                 1,619,760
<RECEIVABLES>                                  233,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,951
<INVENTORY>                                    275,245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,326,507
<PP&E>                                       1,249,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                 519,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,554,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          484,127
<BONDS>                                        149,708
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,162
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,277,643
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,554,441
<SALES>                                      1,039,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,421,378
<CGS>                                          285,549
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  285,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               367,338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                35,245
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,340,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (196,398)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,144,528)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,144,528)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.46)



</TABLE>