alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11998

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MARCUS BODIE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TOWNE PARK SERVICES, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-01097-SDM-CPT

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-11998 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2023 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11998

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Bodie, an African American, filed a complaint 

against Towne Park Services, LLC (Towne), alleging Towne failed 

to hire him because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The 

district court granted summary judgment to Towne, finding Bodie 

failed to prove intentional discrimination through circumstantial 

evidence under either the McDonnell Douglas1 burden-shifting 

framework or the “convincing mosaic”2 avenue. 

After careful review of the briefs and the record, we agree 

with the district court that Bodie failed to show Towne’s proffered, 

non-discriminatory reason for not hiring him—administrative 

oversight—was pretextual.3 And we agree that the record lacks a 

“convincing mosaic” of discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s well-reasoned decision.

AFFIRMED. 

1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 

2 See Jenkins v. Nell, 26 F.4th 1243, 1250 (11th Cir. 2022).

3 Bodie also argue that his race was the “but-for” cause for Towne’s failure to 

hire him. But Bodie pointed to no evidence to suggest that his race was the 

reason. In fact, the evidence shows an administrative oversight by Towne’s 

talent acquisition team was the reason for the non-hire. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11998 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2023 Page: 2 of 2
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT *2;*United Mine Workers of America, Local 1113, Including John Lease, and United Mine Workers of America, United Mine Workers of America, District *2,*Including James Le-corre, and United Mine Workers of America; United Mine Workers of America, District *2,*Including Michael Degretto and John Kosick, Respondents.

No. 11167.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Feb. 4, 1954.

Decided Feb. 17, 1954.

Edmond Francis Rovner, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Maurice Alexandre, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Samuel Krimsly, Albert C. Shapira, Pittsburgh, Pa., Willard P. Owens, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition by the National Labor Relations Board for an enforcement order against the respondents. The case presents facts very similar to those before us in N. L. R. B. v. United Mine Workers of America, District 2, 3 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 177. The petition is undefended in this Court. We have satisfied ourselves, however, that the evidence supports the findings of the Board and the prayed for enforcement order will be issued.
§ 301.89-5 Movement of regulated articles from regulated areas. ( a ) Any regulated article may be moved from a regulated area into or through an area that is not regulated only if moved under the following conditions: ( 1 ) With a certificate or limited permit issued and attached in accordance with §§ 301.89-6 and 301.89-10;
( 2 ) Without a certificate or limited permit, provided that each of the following conditions is met: ( i ) The regulated article was moved into the regulated area from an area that is not regulated;
( ii ) The point of origin is indicated on a waybill accompanying the regulated article;
( iii ) The regulated article is moved through the regulated area without stopping, or has been stored, packed, or handled at locations approved by an inspector as not posing a risk of contamination with Karnal bunt, or has been treated in accordance with part 305 of this chapter while in or moving through any regulated area; and
( iv ) The article has not been combined or commingled with other articles so as to lose its individual identity;
( b ) When an inspector has probable cause to believe a person or means of conveyance is moving a regulated article, the inspector is authorized to stop the person or means of conveyance to determine whether a regulated article is present and to inspect the regulated article. Articles found to be infected by an inspector, and articles not in compliance with the regulations in this subpart, may be seized, quarantined, treated, subjected to other remedial measures, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of. Any treatments will be in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
[61 FR 52207, Oct. 4, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 23627, May 1, 1997; 63 FR 50751, Sept. 23, 1998; 69 FR 8096, Feb. 23, 2004; 75 FR 4241, Jan. 26, 2010; 75 FR 68945, Nov. 10, 2010]
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.262 Grant agreement and administration. ( a ) *General.* HUD will enter into grant agreements with grantees, to provide congregate services for program participants in eligible housing projects, in order to meet the purposes of CHSP.
( b ) *Term of grant agreement and reservation of amount.* A grant will be for a term of five years and the Secretary concerned shall reserve a sum equal to the total approved grant amount for each grantee. Grants will be renewable at the expiration of a term, subject to the availability of funds and conformance with the regulations in this subpart, except as otherwise provided in section 1944.160.
( c ) *Monitoring of project sites by governmental units.* States, Indian tribes, and units of general local government with a grant covering multiple projects shall monitor, review, and evaluate Program performance at each project site for compliance with CHSP regulations and procedures, in such manner as prescribed by HUD or RHS.
( d ) *Reports.* Each grantee shall submit program and fiscal reports and program budgets to the Secretary concerned in such form and at such times, as the Secretary concerned requires.
( e ) *Enforcement.* The Secretary concerned will enforce the obligations of the grantee under the agreement through such action as may be necessary, including terminating grants, recapturing grant funds, and imposing sanctions. ( 1 ) These actions may be taken for: ( i ) A grantee's non-compliance with the grant agreement or HUD or RHS regulations;
( ii ) Failure of the grantee to provide supportive services within 12 months of execution of the grant agreement.
( 2 ) Sanctions include but are not limited to the following: ( i ) Temporary withholding of reimbursements or extensions or renewals under the grant agreement, pending correction of deficiencies by the grantee;
( ii ) Setting conditions in the contract;
( iii ) Termination of the grant;
( iv ) Substitution of grantee; and
( v ) Any other action deemed necessary by the Secretary concerned.
( f ) *Renewal of grants.* Subject to the availability of funding, satisfactory performance, and compliance with the regulations in this subpart: ( 1 ) Grantees funded initially under this subpart shall be eligible to receive continued, non-competitive renewals after the initial five-year term of the grant.
( 2 ) Grantees will receive priority funding and grants will be renewed within time periods prescribed by the Secretary concerned.
( g ) *Use of Grant Funds.* If during any year, grantees use less than the annual amount of CHSP funds provided to them for that year, the excess amount can be carried forward for use in later years.
Directorate ID FAA

- 2013

- 0418



### Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 10/31/12

Regional Airline Associatio n 10/31/12

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 10/31/12

ATA M Lopez 10/31/12
#### § 301.85-6 Assembly and inspection of regulated articles.

Persons (other than those authorized to use certificates, limited permits, or restricted destination permits, or reproductions thereof, under § 301.85-4(e)) who desire to move interstate regulated articles which must be accompanied by a certificate or permit shall, as far in advance as possible, request an inspector to examine the articles prior to movement. Such articles shall be assembled at such points and in such manner as the inspector designates to facilitate inspection.
Exhibit
10.10

June 11, 2004

John W. Henry
& Company, Inc.
 301 Yamato Road, Suite 2200
 Boca Raton,
Fl. 33431-4931

Attn: Mr. Ken Webster

Re:    Management Agreement Renewals

Dear Mr. Webster:

We are
writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the
"Management Agreements"). We are extending
the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2005 and all
other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain
unchanged.

			
		• 	Shearson
Mid-West Futures
Fund


			
		• 	Shearson Lehman
Select Advisors Futures Fund
L.P.


			
		• 	Smith Barney
Mid-West Futures Fund L.P.
II


			
		• 	Smith Barney
Westport Futures Fund L.P.


			
		• 	Hutton Investors Futures
Fund, L.P. II (HIFF
II)


			
		• 	AURORA
2001


			
		• 	AURORA
III


			
		• 	Citigroup
Diversified Futures Fund
L.P.


			
		• 	Salomon Smith
Barney Diversified 2000 Futures Fund
L.P.


			
		• 	Alera
100


			
		• 	JWH Strategic
Allocation Master Fund LLC









Page 2
 June 11,
2004

Please acknowledge receipt
of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning
it to the attention of Mr. Daniel McAuliffe at the address above or fax
to 212-793-1986. If you have any questions I can be reached at
212-559-5043.

Very truly yours,

CITIGROUP
MANAGED FUTURES LLC

		
	By: 	/s/ Daniel R.
McAuliffe, Jr.
 Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
 Chief Financial
Officer and Director


JOHN W. HENRY & COMPANY,
INC.

		
	By: 	/s/ Ken Webster


Print
Name: Ken Webster

DRMcA/sr
#### § 29.2509 Color symbols.

As applied to these types, color symbols are L—light brown, F—medium brown, D—dark brown, M—mixed or variegated VF—greenish medium brown, and G—green.
97- 2175.

#### Visicon, Inc. v. Tracy.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 96-M-414 and 96-M-415. Reported at 83 Ohio St.3d 211, 699 N.E.2d 89. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
§ 29.71 Mandatory inspection. Mandatory inspection consists of: ( a ) Inspecting and certifying tobacco under the Act on designated markets before it is offered for sale at auction; or
( b ) Inspecting and certifying tobacco at receiving stations under the Appropriations Act at the time the tobacco is delivered for sale.
[67 FR 36080, May 23, 2002]
#### § 29.1128 Rule 22.

Sound tobacco that is wet or in doubtful-keeping order but which otherwise meets the specifications of a grade shall be treated as a special factor grade by placing the special factor “W” after the grademark.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1423

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Joseph R. Flying Horse lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western

____________ Submitted: June 6, 2023 Filed: June 9, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Joseph Flying Horse appeals after the district court 1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 4 months in prison and 30 months of supervised release.

1 The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the

sentence. Flying Horse has filed several pro se motions challenging his underlying conviction and seeking the return of property. As to the argument in counsel’s brief, after careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Flying Horse, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence was below the advisory Guidelines range and the statutory limit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years for Class D felony; maximum supervised release term is 3 years, less any previous and current revocation prison terms); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant upon revocation; all that is required is consideration of relevant matters and some reason for court’s decision). As to Flying Horse’s pro se arguments, we conclude that he may not challenge his original conviction or seek the return of property in this proceeding. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 913 (defendant may not challenge validity of his underlying sentence through collateral attack in supervised release revocation proceeding); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) (providing procedure for seeking return of property). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny Flying Horse’s pending motions, and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:97CR85LAC

DWIGHT SPENCER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on September 6, 2007 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 8/23 /2007 Doc.# 113

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 17th day of

September, 2007, that:

(a) The relief requested is GRANTED.

(b) Having considered the objections filed (doc 112), the Court affirms its order

of 15 August 2007 (doc 111) which remains in full force and effect. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:97-cr-00085-LC-MD Document 114 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 1
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW G. HARVEY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-15905

D.C. No. 4:07-cv-00204-SBA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Andrew G. Harvey appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

FILED

MAR 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-15905

Harvey contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not

supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After

briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward

v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme

Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is

procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not

whether the state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.

Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011). Because Harvey raises no procedural challenges, a COA

cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). 

DISMISSED.
§ 301.86-6 Compliance agreements and cancellation. ( a ) Any person engaged in growing, handling, or moving regulated articles may enter into a compliance agreement when an inspector determines that the person is aware of this subpart, agrees to comply with its provisions, and agrees to comply with all the provisions contained in the compliance agreement.[1]
( b ) Any compliance agreement may be canceled, either orally or in writing, by an inspector whenever the inspector finds that the person who has entered into the compliance agreement has failed to comply with any of the provisions of this subpart. If the cancellation is oral, the cancellation and the reasons for the cancellation will be confirmed in writing as promptly as circumstances allow. Any person whose compliance agreement has been canceled may appeal the decision, in writing, to the Administrator, within 10 days after receiving written notification of the cancellation. The appeal must state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the compliance agreement was wrongfully canceled. As promptly as circumstances allow, the Administrator will grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for the decision. A hearing will be held to resolve any conflict as to any material fact. Rules of practice concerning a hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
[72 FR 51984, Sept. 12, 2007, as amended at 87 FR 80015, Dec. 29, 2022] Footnotes -
301.86-6
[1] Compliance agreement forms are available without charge from local Plant Protection and Quarantine offices, which are listed in telephone directories.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL DUBOIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cv107-SPM

CHRISTA CALAMAS, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

Upon consideration, the request (doc. 209) for attorneys Jane Perkins and

Sarah Somers to appear by telephone is granted. The attorneys should be

prepared to accept a call from the Court to a single telephone line at the time of

the hearing.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2007.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00107-SPM-AK Document 214 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 1
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-51111

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FAUSTO GUEVARRA-OSTIGUIN, also

known as Fausto Guevarra,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-99-CR-710-ALL-DB

_________________________________________________________________

July 13, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The federal public defender appointed to represent Fausto

Guevarra-Ostiguin has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Guevarra-Ostiguin has received a copy of counsel’s motion and

brief, but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the

brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
2

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Exhibit
10.20
 
 **Theragenics
Corporation® Short-Term Incentives**
 
 The
following short-term incentives for the Executive Officers of the Company,
providing for 2004 cash bonus opportunities upon the achievement of certain
goals set forth below, were recommended by the Compensation Committee on May 11,
2004 and approved by the Board of Directors on June 21, 2004:
  (1)
    *Chief
      Executive Officer*:
      
      *Target*(%
      of Base Salary) - 50%
      *Maximum*(% of Base Salary) - 100%(2)
    *Chief
      Financial Officer*:
      
      *Target*(%
      of Base Salary) - 40%
      *Maximum*(% of Base Salary) - 80%(3)
    *EVP
      - Strategy, Development & Acquisitions*:
      
      *Target*(%
      of Base Salary) - 35%
      *Maximum*(%
      of Base Salary) - 70%(4)
    *EVP
      - Organizational Development*:
      
      *Target*(% of Base Salary) - 35%
      *Maximum*(%
      of Base Salary) - 70%(5)
    *General
      Counsel*:
      
      *Target*(%
      of Base Salary) - 35%
      *Maximum*(% of Base Salary) - 70%
 With
regard to the above, 60% of the target opportunity was tied to financial
performance, evenly split (30% + 30%) between revenue and earnings per share
goals. These goals were recommended by the Compensation Committee and approved
by the Board. The remaining 40% of the target opportunity was tied to individual
performance objectives, which were recommended by the Compensation Committee and
approved by the Board. In the case of Ms. Jacobs, the financial and
individual performance objectives were recommended by the Compensation Committee
and approved by the independent directors of the Board.
 
 Information
regarding short-term incentives paid for 2004 and a description of the
short-term incentives for 2005 are included in the Company’s Form 8-K filed
February 14, 2005 and incorporated by reference herein.