alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-10465 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. CURTIS ONEAL RHINE, Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-183-1
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Proceeding pro se , Curtis Oneal Rhi n e , federal prisoner # 36888-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) m o t i o n f or a sentence reduction. He contends the court abused its discretion by: improperly relying on his alleged participation in the Fish Bowl drug-traffickin g rin g ; f ailing to consider the various classes he completed during imprisonment; and refusing to reduce his sentence in retaliation for his successful appeal in United States v. Rhine , 583 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2009). U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 25 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-10465 Document: 00512033360 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2012No. 12-10465

The district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). In considering Rhine’s motion, the district court

was required to, and expressly did, assess the 18 U

. S

. C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Doublin , 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). The court properly considered Rhine’s alleged partici p a t i on in the Fish Bowl drugtrafficking ring as part of his history under § 3553(a)(1). United States v. Rhine , 637 F.3d 525, 529 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 1001 (2012). Although Rhine contends the district court failed to properly consider his post-sentencing conduct, such consideration is not required. Evans , 587 F.3d at 673 & n.10; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment n.1(B)(iii). Rhine’s retaliation claim al so fails. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-10465 Document: 00512033360 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2012
52.222-15 Certification of Eligibility.       As prescribed in 22.407(a), insert the following clause:          Certification of Eligibility (May 2014)                                       (a) 						            By entering into this contract, the Contractor certifies that neither it nor any person or firm who has an interest in the Contractor's firm is a person or firm ineligible to be awarded Government contracts by virtue of 40 U.S.C. 3144(b)(2) or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).                                          (b) 						            No part of this contract shall be subcontracted to any person or firm ineligible for award of a Government contract by virtue of 40 U.S.C. 3144(b)(2) or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).                                          (c) 						            The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in the U.S. Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.1001.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.222 [Reserved]
158 So.2d 594

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Alfred WESSINGER and Elie Dorsey.

No. 46688.

Dec. 16, 1963.

Murphy W. Bell, Baton Rouge, for appellants.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty; Gen:, M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent-Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

SUMMERS, Justice.

Defendants were convicted and appealed. They made no appearance and filed no briefs in this court, therefore, the bills of exceptions which were reserved are considered abandoned. State v. Perry, 239 La. 131, 118 So.2d 130 (1960). The only *412question remaining under these circumstances is whether there are any errors patent on the face of the record. A review of the record discloses no error patent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 344 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 344

         To link recidivist penalties for certain drug crimes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 10, 2005

  Mr. DeWine introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To link recidivist penalties for certain drug crimes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PRIOR OFFENSES.

    (a) Distribution to Minors.--Section 418(b) of the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 859(b)) is amended by inserting ``, section 
419, or section 420'' after ``subsection (a) of this section''.
    (b) Distribution Near Schools.--Section 419(b) of the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 860(b)) is amended by inserting ``, section 
418, or section 420'' after ``subsection (a) of this section''.
    (c) Employment of Minors.--Section 420(c) of the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 861(c)) is amended by inserting ``, section 
418, or section 419'' after ``subsection (a) of this section''.
                                 <all>
```
Second Department,

October, 1966

(October 3, 1966)*

#### In the Matter of Robert M. Stein, Petitioner, v. Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department, et al., Respondents.

*

 Not published with other decisions of October 3, 1966, 26 A D 2d 818.— [Rep.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit and enjoin respondents from proceeding with or entertaining an appeal taken by the respondent District Attorney to the respondent court in *People*v. *Robert M. Stein.*Proceeding dismissed, without costs. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Outdoor Channel Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Perry T. Massie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.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 results of
          operations of the Company.

/s/ Perry T. Massie
-----------------------
PERRY T. MASSIE
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Outdoor
Channel Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LEROY WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv658-ID

v. )

 )

STATE OF ALABAMA DEP'T OF )

TRANSPORTATION, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff Leroy Williams' motion to strike Defendants'

supplemental evidentiary submission or, in the alternative, to submit additional

evidentiary materials, filed June 12, 2007 (Doc. No. 35). Pursuant to the discussions held

this date at the pretrial hearing, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Defendants are

hereby GRANTED until June 21, 2007, to file a response to Plaintiff's motion.

DONE this 18 day of June, 2007. th

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 36 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RALPH WILSON LINGO, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-703-MHT

)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the motion for extension of time filed by the petitioner on

September 2, 2008 (Court Doc. No. 68), and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that this motion be and is hereby GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the petitioner be GRANTED an extension from September 2, 2008

to and including September 17, 2008 to file his objection to the Recommendation entered on

August 18, 2008 (Court Doc. No. 67).

Done this 3rd day of September, 2008.

 /s/ Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 69 Filed 09/03/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00687-WHA-DRB Document 11 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.77


 


Equity Transfer Agreement - Amendment 1


 


Transferor (Party A): Ambow Education
Management (Hong Kong) Limited


 


Transferee (Party B): Beijing Shengkehua
Technology Co., Ltd.


 


Party A and Party B hereby confirm and agree
as follows:


		Ÿ	Party A has handed over the company stamp
and business licenses of Ambow Online to Party B. Next Party A will coordinate with Party B to file amendments for the change of
shareholder and articles of association to the Industry and Commerce Bureau. 



 


		Ÿ	The date of the object equity interest
transfer is August 31, 2017.



 


	PARTY A: Ambow Education Management (Hong Kong) Limited
	 
	Authorized Representative:	 
	Signature:	/s/
	Date: August 31,
    2017	 
	 
	Party B: Beijing Shengkehua Technology Co., Ltd.
	Authorized Representative:	 
	Signature:	/s/
	Date: August 31,
    2017
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.70 Confidential information.

All reports and records furnished or submitted by handlers to the Board, which include data or information constituting a trade secret or disclosing of the trade position, financial condition, or business operations of the particular handler from whom received, shall be kept in the custody and under the control of one or more employees of the Board, and shall be disclosed to no person except the Secretary.
§ 774.22 Loan closing. ( a ) *Conditions.* The applicant must meet all conditions specified by the loan approval official in the notification of loan approval prior to closing.
( b ) *Loan instruments and legal documents.* The applicant will execute all loan instruments and legal documents required by the Agency to evidence the debt, perfect the required security interest in the bankruptcy claim, and protect the Government's interest, in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. In the case of an entity applicant, all officers or partners and any board members also will be required to execute the promissory notes as individuals.
( c ) *Fees.* The applicant will pay all loan closing fees for recording any legal instruments determined to be necessary and all notary, lien search, and similar fees incident to loan transactions. No fees will be assessed for work performed by Agency employees.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6426
NIYGEL ST. JOHN TINSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2931-4-21BE) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Niygel St. John Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. William Ansel Collins, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tinsley v. Moore , No. CA-95-2931-4-21BE (D.S.C. Mar. 3, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 956.92 Agents.

The Secretary may, by designation in writing, name any person, including any officer or employee of the Government, or name any agency in the United States Department of Agriculture, to act as the Secretary's agent or representative in connection with any of the provisions of this part.
§ 927.33 Procedure. ( a ) *Quorum and voting.* A quorum at a meeting of the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee shall consist of 75 percent of the number of committee members, or alternates then serving in the place of any members, respectively. Except as otherwise provided in § 927.52, all decisions of the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee at any meeting shall require the concurring vote of at least 75 percent of those members present, including alternates then serving in the place of any members.
( b ) *Mail voting.* The Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee may provide for members voting by mail, telecopier or other electronic means, telephone, or telegraph, upon due notice to all members. Promptly after voting by telephone or telegraph, each member thus voting shall confirm in writing, the vote so cast.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 18, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137179 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 137179 

 COA: 285731 

Genesee CC: 06-019598-FC 

LISA LOUISE UPCHURCH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 9, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

1211 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 18, 2008 

 Clerk
# NIOSH eNews

## At a glance

eNews is the monthly newsletter of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Each month includes an update from NIOSH Director Dr. John Howard, featured NIOSH research, new worker safety and health resources, upcoming meetings, and more! 

## Sign up

### Subscribe to eNews‎

Subscribe to eNews

Subscribe

## 2024

eNews: September 2024
Aug. 29, 2024

eNews: August 2024
July 30, 2024

eNews: July 2024
June 18, 2024

eNews: June 2024
May 29, 2024

eNews: May 2024

eNews: April 2024

eNews: March 2024

eNews: February 2024

eNews: January 2024

## Previous issues

### 2023

Volume 21, Number 8 (December 2023)

Volume 21, Number 7 (November 2023)

Volume 21, Number 6 (October 2023)

Volume 21, Number 5 (September 2023)

Volume 21, Number 4 (August 2023)

Volume 21, Number 3 (July 2023)

Volume 21, Number 2 (June 2023)

Volume 21, Number 1 (May 2023)

Volume 20, Number 12 (April 2023)

Volume 20, Number 11 (March 2023)

Volume 20, Number 10 (February 2023)

Volume 20, Number 9 (January 2023)

### 2022

Volume 20, Number 8 (December 2022)

Volume 20, Number 7 (November 2022)

Volume 20, Number 6 (October 2022)

Volume 20, Number 5 (September 2022)

Volume 20, Number 4 (August 2022)

Volume 20, Number 3 (July 2022)

Volume 20, Number 2 (June 2022)

Volume 20, Number 1 (May 2022)

Volume 19, Number 12 (April 2022)

Volume 19, Number 11 (March 2022)

Volume 19, Number 10 (February 2022)

Volume 19, Number 9 (January 2022)

### 2021

Volume 19, Number 8 (December 2021)

### More eNews ‎

 CDC Stacks

## Research Rounds

Research Rounds is a monthly bulletin of selected research conducted by researchers at NIOSH and NIOSH-funded researchers at other institutions. In October 2019 Research Rounds merged with eNews. Research Rounds archives are available at CDC Stacks (search on Research Rounds).

## 		On This Page	

              - Sign up
              - 2024
              - Previous issues
              - Research Rounds

SourcesPrintShare

FacebookLinkedInTwitterSyndicate

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>          JUN-30-1998

<CASH>                      20,835,756 
<SECURITIES>                      0    
<RECEIVABLES>                3,566,493 
<ALLOWANCES>                      0    
<INVENTORY>                       0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>            24,402,249 
<PP&E>                      45,836,318 
<DEPRECIATION>                    0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              94,010,079 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        3,142,270 
<BONDS>                    114,081,718 
<COMMON>                          0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0    
<PREFERRED>                       0    
<OTHER-SE>                 (30,654,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>94,010,079 
<SALES>                      4,672,797 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             6,170,194 
<CGS>                             0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                1,911,810 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               854,682 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           6,340,228 
<INCOME-PRETAX>             (2,936,526)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>         (1,501,396)
<DISCONTINUED>              26,218,946 
<EXTRAORDINARY>             17,451,802 
<CHANGES>                         0    
<NET-INCOME>                42,169,352 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    94.21 
<EPS-DILUTED>                    94.21 
        


</TABLE>
# Subpart 412.3 - Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses for the Acquisition of Commercial Items

**Parent topic:**PART 412 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

## 412.302 Tailoring of provisions and clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.

The head of the contracting activity is authorized to approve waivers in accordance with FAR 12.302(c). The approved waiver may be either for an individual contract or for a class of contracts for the specific item. The approved waiver and supporting documentation shall be incorporated into the contract file.
#### § 983.83 Separability.

If any provision of this part is declared invalid, or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance, or thing is held invalid, the validity of the remainder, or the applicability thereof to any other person, circumstance, or thing, shall not be affected thereby.

[69 FR 17850, Apr. 4, 2004. Redesignated at 74 FR 56540, Nov. 2, 2009]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

July 13, 2007

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY

 REGARDING CORPORATE/

CONFLICT STATEMENT

To: All parties

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: Williams v. State of Alabama Department of Transportation et al

Case Number: 2:06-cv-00658-TFM

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7.1, and this

Court’s General Order Miscellaneous Case No. 00-3047 parties are required to file their

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement at their initial appearance.

No corporate/conflict disclosure statement has been filed by you in this action.

This deficiency must be corrected within ten (10) days from this date. Please refer to

attachment.

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 47 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 58.123 Survey and approval.

Prior to the approval of a plant, a designated representative of the Administrator shall make a survey of the plant, premises, storage facilities, equipment and raw material, volume of raw material processed daily, and facilities for handling the products at the plant. The survey shall be made at least twice a year to determine whether the facilities, equipment, method of operation, and raw material being received are adequate and suitable for USDA inspection and grading service in accordance with the provisions of this part. To be eligible for approval a plant shall satisfactorily meet the specifications of this subpart as determined by the Administrator.
Subpart 5202.1 - DEFINITIONS

Parent topic: Part 5202 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

Definitions.

“Acquisition Category” or ACAT is a defense acquisition program designation. For the purposes of

NMCARS, this designation also includes “Business System Category” (BCAT) as defined in DoD

Instruction 5000.75.

“ASN(RDA) Website” is defined as https://www.secnav.navy.mil/rda/DASN-P and all accompanying

pages within the site where DON contracting policy is posted.

“Clause” is defined as language which imposes a duty on the Government or contractor and is not

directly related to the production or performance of a contract deliverable as depicted in Figure 1,

Contract Language Criteria.
“CCO" is the “Chief of the Contracting Office”. The CCO is the official who has overall responsibility

for managing the day-to-day contracting office operations and includes the principal deputy to such

official.

“DASN(P)” is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Procurement, Office of the Assistant

Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition). It also includes the Executive

Director, DASN(P), and the Navy Senior Services Manager (SSM).

“Deputy/Assistant Commander for Contracts” is the Deputy or Assistant Commander for Contracts

or the equivalent at a Systems Command, the Headquarters, NAVFACENGCOM; Deputy

Commandant for HQMC, I&L; ONR; MSC; and SSP. It also includes the principal deputy for these

officials.

“NAE” is the Navy Acquisition Executive. ASN(RDA) is the NAE.

“Navy” or "DON" is the Department of Navy including the Marine Corps, unless otherwise specified.

“NSPE” is Navy Senior Procurement Executive. ASN(RDA) is the NSPE.
“Provision” is defined as language necessary for a potential offeror to produce a conforming

proposal in response to a solicitation.