alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:25
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 2 of 26 PageID #:26
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 3 of 26 PageID #:27
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 4 of 26 PageID #:28
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 5 of 26 PageID #:29
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 6 of 26 PageID #:30
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 7 of 26 PageID #:31
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 8 of 26 PageID #:32
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 9 of 26 PageID #:33
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 10 of 26 PageID #:34
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 11 of 26 PageID #:35
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 12 of 26 PageID #:36
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 13 of 26 PageID #:37
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 14 of 26 PageID #:38
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 15 of 26 PageID #:39
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 16 of 26 PageID #:40
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 17 of 26 PageID #:41
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 18 of 26 PageID #:42
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 19 of 26 PageID #:43
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 20 of 26 PageID #:44
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 21 of 26 PageID #:45
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 22 of 26 PageID #:46
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 23 of 26 PageID #:47
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 24 of 26 PageID #:48
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 25 of 26 PageID #:49
Case: 1:12-cv-03207 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 26 of 26 PageID #:50
3XOPRQDU\ (RVLQRSKLOLD

$JH$GMXVWHG 'HDWK 5DWHV E\ +6$

86 5HVLGHQWV  <HDUV RI $JH DQG 2OGHU 

,&' &RGH 

'RXEOHKDWFK PDUNV LQGLFDWH   GHDWKV
3XOPRQDU\ (RVLQRSKLOLD

'HDWK 5DWHV RI (DFK +6$ &RPSDUHG ZLWK 86 5DWH

86 5HVLGHQWV  <HDUV RI $JH DQG 2OGHU 

,&' &RGH 

'RXEOHKDWFK PDUNV LQGLFDWH   GHDWKV
58

Pulmonary Eosinophilia (ICD-9 Code 518.3)Pulmonary eosinophilia (ICD-9 code 518.3) is a term used for a group of lung disorders associated with increased in lung tissue and/or peripheral blood. Based upon clinical and pathologic features, a number of relatively distinct characterized within this group of lung disorders, including acute pulmonary eosinophilia, chronic eosinophilic pneeosinophilia, asthma associated with pulmonary eosinophilia, allergic granulomatosis, allergic bronchopulmonary mhypereosinophilic syndrome, and eosinophilic granuloma of the lung [Rochester 1998]. Pulmonary eosinophilia has most commonly been associated with parasitic infections or allergic and hypersensitiviPulmonary and/or peripheral blood eosinophilia has often been observed in the setting of hypersensitivity reaction(e.g., penicillins, sulfonamides, captopril, chlorpropamide) [Smith 1990]. A recent study reported that acute viral increased airways responsiveness to inhaled methacholine and pulmonary eosinophilic inflammation [Schwarze et occupational exposures have been associated with eosinophilia. Chronic inhalational exposure to nickel has been development of asthma and pulmonary eosinophilia [Sunderman 1961]. Various inhaled organic agents can induceosinophilia, including grain and wood dusts, and animal, insect, and fungal allergens [Pepys 1986]. Increases in bbeen reported in a group of rubber injection press operators [Thomas and Bascom 1985; Bascom et al. 1990].ReferencesBascom R, Baser ME, Thomas RJ, Fisher JF, Yang WN, Baker JH [1990]. Elevated serum IgE, eosinophilia, and lung function in ruHealth 45:15-19.Pepys J [1986]. Occupational allergic lung disease caused by organic agents. J Allergy Clin Immunol 78:1058-1062.Rochester C [1998]. The eosinophilic pneumonias. In: Fishman AP, Elias JA, Fishman JA, Grippi MA, Kaiser LR, Senior RM, eds. diseases and disorders, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 1133-1150.Schwarze J, Hamelmann E, Bradley KL, Takeda K, Gelfand EW [1997]. Respiratory syncytial virus results in airway hyperresponsivesensitization to allergen. J Clin Invest 100:226-233.Smith GJW [1990]. The histopathology of pulmonary reactions to drugs. Clin Chest Med 11:95-117. Sunderman FW [1961]. Loffler’s syndrome associated with nickel sensitivity. Arch Int Med 107:405-408.Thomas RJ, Bascom JF [1985]. Respiratory symptoms and peripheral eosinophilia in a group of rubber injection press operators. Am
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

CARLOS ESTRELLA CAMBRANIS, a.k.a. Carlos Estrella, a.k.a. Carlos Estrella

Cambranis,

Defendant

- Appellant. Nos. 17

- 10387

17

- 10388

D.C . Nos. 4:16

- cr

- 00243

- JSW

4:13

- cr

- 00146

- JSW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Carlos Estrella Cambranis appeals the 50

-

month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for i llegal reentry

following deportation , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 12

- month

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 10387 & 17

- 10388

consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cambranis contends that the 62

- month sentence is substantively

unreasonable because his mitigating arguments concerning his history and

background, his reasons for returning to the United States, and his law

- abiding

behavior after his return warranted a lower sentence. The district court did not

abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

. The

sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a)

sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to deter.

See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.

Moreover, the court properly exercised its discretion to impose consecutive

terms in light of Cambranis’ s breach of the court’s trust. S ee U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f);

United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.
U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment Standards Administration 

Wage and Hour Division 

 (Revised July 2008) 

Fact Sheet #14: Coverage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 

This fact sheet provides general information concerning coverage under the FLSA. 

The FLSA is the Federal law which sets minimum wage, overtime, recordkeeping, and youth employment 

standards. 

The minimum wage for covered nonexempt workers is not less than $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008 and 

$7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. With only some exceptions, overtime ("time and one-half") must be paid 

for work over forty hours a week. Child labor regulations prohibit persons younger than eighteen years old from 

working in certain jobs and additionally sets rules concerning the hours and times employees under sixteen 

years of age may work. 

More than 130 million American workers are protected (or "covered") by the FLSA, which is enforced by the 

Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor. 

There are two ways in which an employee can be covered by the law: "enterprise coverage" and "individual 

coverage." 

Enterprise Coverage 

Employees who work for certain businesses or organizations (or "enterprises") are covered by the FLSA. These 

enterprises, which must have at least two employees, are: 

(1) those that have an annual dollar volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000 

(2) hospitals, businesses providing medical or nursing care for residents, schools and preschools, and 

government agencies 

Individual Coverage 

Even when there is no enterprise coverage, employees are protected by the FLSA if their work regularly 

involves them in commerce between States ("interstate commerce"). The FLSA covers individual workers who 

are "engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce." 

Examples of employees who are involved in interstate commerce include those who: produce goods (such as a 

worker assembling components in a factory or a secretary typing letters in an office) that will be sent out of 

state, regularly make telephone calls to persons located in other States, handle records of interstate transactions, 

travel to other States on their jobs, and do janitorial work in buildings where goods are produced for shipment 

outside the State. 

Also, domestic service workers (such as housekeepers, full-time babysitters, and cooks) are normally covered 

by the law. 
Where to Obtain Additional Information 

For additional information, visit our Wage and Hour Division Website: http://www.wagehour.dol.gov

and/or call our toll-free information and helpline, available 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in your time zone, 1-866-

4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243). 

This publication is for general information and is not to be considered in the same light as official statements of 

position contained in the regulations. 

U.S. Department of Labor

Frances Perkins Building 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20210 

1-866-4-USWAGE

 TTY: 1-866-487-9243

Contact Us
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7767

In Re: RAHSAAN JAMAR WATKINS,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus. (CR-99-189; CA-02-1137-2)

Submitted: March 10, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004

Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rahsaan Jamar Watkins, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rahsaan Jamar Watkins has filed three petitions for writs

of mandamus, which have been docketed together for consideration.

His first petition addresses the alleged difficulties he has had

getting papers filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action.

Watkins seeks to have the magistrate judge recused from his case

and an investigation ordered into the magistrate judge, district

court judge, and their clerks. In his second petition, Watkins

seeks an order requiring the district court to give specific

reasons for failing to grant him a certificate of appealability,

and in his third petition, Watkins requests that we order the

district court to file his notice of appeal.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in

extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th

Cir. 1987). It is available only where there are no other means by

which the relief sought could be granted. Id. Mandamus may not be

used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973

F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking mandamus relief

carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate

means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to

such relief is clear and undisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v.

Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980),

Regarding Watkins’ first mandamus petition, all of

Watkins’ documents were filed with the exception of a letter dated
- 3 -

September 18, 2003, in which Watkins inquired about his reply

brief. Since this letter may have been construed as an inquiry

rather than a motion, it is likely that it was intentionally and

properly not “filed.” The other motions were apparently not

properly sent to the clerk’s office, even though Watkins was

informed in an August 14, 2003 court order that his documents

should be filed with the clerk’s office. In any event, Watkins

fails to show prejudice from any of the filing delays, and any

errors were quickly rectified. Accordingly, Watkins does not

establish the requisite extraordinary circumstances for mandamus

relief.

Watkins’ two other mandamus petitions are moot, as he has

already received the relief he requested. The district court’s

January 12, 2004 order specifically stated why Watkins’ motion for

a certificate of appealability was denied, and Watkins’ notice of

appeal was timely filed.

Accordingly, we grant Watkins’ motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and deny his mandamus petitions. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED
# Summary Table

# Detailed Table

# Inputs

# Parameters

# Notes
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 51 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 51

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in the enrollment of S. 140, an Act to amend the White Mountain 
Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use 
of amounts in the WMAT Settlement Fund, the Secretary of the Senate 
shall amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to authorize 
appropriations for the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.''.

            Passed the Senate November 15, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 51

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

                  To correct the enrollment of S. 140.
```
Case: 1:12-cv-01638 Document #: 3 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:31
#### In the Matter of Maurice L. Zaken, an Attorney.

Respondent suspended indefinitely. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Exhibit 32.0

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cal-Maine
Foods Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended November 29, 2003 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Fred R. Adams, Jr.
Fred R. Adams, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Bobby J.
RainesBobby J. Raines Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

Date: January 12, 2004
E X H I B I T   2 3.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-5404) pertaining to the 1981 Incentive Stock Option Plan and The 1983
Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-06091) pertaining to the 1996 Executive Stock Option Plan of ALPNET, Inc.
and subsidiaries of our report dated March 21, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of ALPNET, Inc. and subsidiaries included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                                           \s\ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
March 21, 1997
<PAGE>


                                                               Exhibit 10.22



                        ANGELICA CORPORATION
                  FORM 10-K FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                          JANUARY 29, 2000

                              SCHEDULE

The indemnification agreements presently in effect between the Company
and its Directors and executive officers as of various dates are
substantially identical in all material respects.  This schedule is
included pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K for
the purpose of identifying the Directors and executive officers
executing such agreements:

Name                          Title
----                          -----

David A. Abrahamson           Director

Susan S. Elliott              Director

Earle H. Harbison, Jr.        Director

Don W. Hubble                 Chairman, President and Chief
                              Executive Officer

L. F. Loewe                   Director

Charles W. Mueller            Director

William A. Peck, M.D.         Director

William P. Stiritz            Director

H. Edwin Trusheim             Director

T. M. Armstrong               Sr. Vice President-Finance and
                              Administration

Steven L. Frey                Vice President, General Counsel &
                              Secretary




<PAGE>
<PAGE>

Charles D. Molloy, Jr.        Vice President

James W. Shaffer              Vice President and Treasurer

Denis R. Raab                 Vice President

Alan D. Wilson                Vice President
#### 1403.570-1 Policy.

Award of a contract does not signify endorsement of the supplies or services purchased, nor does it signify agreement with any views espoused by officials of the awardee. It is vital to the integrity of the procurement system to avoid even the appearance of an improper preference toward a particular vendor. Therefore, contractors shall not be permitted to publicize, or otherwise circulate, promotional materials that state or imply Governmental endorsement of a product, service or position which the contractor represents.
EXHIBIT NO. 32
  CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. §1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 §906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   In connection with the Form 10-K of Colony Bankcorp, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Al D. Ross, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Terry L. Hester, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our knowledge and belief 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 results of operations of the Company.
    /s/ Al D. Ross
 Al D. Ross
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 March 15, 2010
   /s/ Terry L. Hester
 Terry L. Hester
 Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
 March 15, 2010
  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway *v.*Pope.

March 1, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Fite. Dade superior court. January 1,1912.

*Foust & Payne,*for plaintiff in error..

*W. U. Jacoway,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. An instruction given in the course of the court’s charge to the jury, that “you may believe that witness who has the best means of knowing the facts about which he testifies and the least inducement to swear falsely,” is not a correct statement of the law, without a qualification that the witness in all other respects is found to be equally credible with the other witnesses. *L. &*N. *R. Co.*v. *Rogers,*136 *Ga.*674 (71 S. E. 1102).

2. The suit is to recover damages for the erection of poles for a telegraph line on the 'plaintiff’s land, and the cutting of timber therefrom. The railroad traversed the land lot several years before the plaintiff purchased it. No paper title was introduced. The testimony relating to the demarcation of the line between the plaintiff and. the defendant, and the location of the poles and the quantum of damages, is so uncertain and vague that it is impossible to say whether the verdict is supported by the evidence, and the ends of justice require that the case be tried again.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Revised 03/11/2008

Case Number: Assigned/Issued By:

Judge Name: Designated Magistrate Judge:

FEE INFORMATION

Amount Due: $350.00 $39.00 $5.00

IFP No Fee Other _____________

 $455.00

 

Number of Service Copies ___________ Date: ______________________

(For use by Fiscal Department Only)

Amount Paid: _______________ Receipt #: __________________

Date Payment Rec’d: _____________ Fiscal Clerk: ________________

ISSUANCES

Summons Alias Summons

Third Party Summons Lis Pendens

Non Wage Garnishment Summons Abstract of Judgment

___________________________

 Wage-Deduction Garnishment Summons ___________________________

 (Victim, Against and $ Amount)

 Citation to Discover Assets

 Other

Writ _______________________ _______________________

 (Type of Writ) _______________________

(Type of issuance)

 ______Original and __________ copies on ________________ as to ____________________________

 (Date)

 ____________________________________________________________________________________

 ____________________________________________________________________________________

Case: 1:12-cv-01163 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/02/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:23
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Howard Ward v. Milton Klein, as Warden.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
#### Nelson Skaarup, Respondent, v. Paving Contractors, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of a Special Term, Supreme Court, Albany County. Plaintiff has obtained an order for the examination of defendant to frame a complaint purported to be based on negligence. There is proof that plaintiff was injured on a certain date at a specific place, but no fact whatever showing any connection, direct or indirect, of defendant with the accident is in the record; or to show that it, rather than some other corporation or member of the general public was responsible for plaintiff’s injury. There are implications in the respondent’s brief that additional evidence exists which would show some such connection; but such proof is not in the papers on which the order was based. Something more to sustain the order must be shown than is found in this record. *(Stewart*v. *Socony Vacuum Oil Co.,*3 A D 2d 582.) Order reversed, with $10 costs and motion denied, without prejudice.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.8(d)

                       1995 DIRECTORS STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
                                       OF
                       UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                 THIRD AMENDMENT

The following represents the THIRD AMENDMENT to the above-referenced Plan,
following its amendment and restatement effective July 14, 1998, made by the
Board at its April 2, 2000 meeting:

         1. Section 5(f)(i) is amended by adding, in the parenthetical in the
first sentence thereof, the words "or is required to resign because of a change
of control and is not elected or appointed to serve as a director of the
surviving company," immediately following the words "retirement policy for
Directors,".

         2. The foregoing amendement is effective April 2, 2000.

         3. Except as amended herein, all other terms and provisions shall
            remain in full force and effect.