alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 14.3 Limit on attorney fees; penalty. ( a ) An attorney may not charge or receive fees in excess of: ( 1 ) 25 percent of any judgment rendered under 28 U.S.C. 1346(b);
( 2 ) 25 percent of any settlement made under 28 U.S.C. 2677; or
( 3 ) 20 percent of any award, compromise, or settlement made under 28 U.S.C. 2672.
( b ) Any attorney who charges or receives any amount in excess of that allowed under this section is subject to a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. (28 U.S.C. 2678)
#### § 14.43 Acceptance of payment constitutes release.

Acceptance by the claimant, his agent, or legal representative, of any award, compromise, or settlement made under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2672 or 2677, is final and conclusive on the claimant, his or her agent or legal representative and any other person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the claim has been presented. Acceptance constitutes a complete release of any claim against the United States and against any employee of the Government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.
Table of Contents

 

**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

                In connection with the quarterly report of China Industrial Waste Management, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Guo Xin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 

August 12, 2010                                                                  /s/ Guo Xin

                                                                                                Guo Xin

Chief Financial Officer

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 

----
1332.1108 Payment by Governmentwide commercial purchase card.       Use of the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is subject to the requirements of the FAR, other internal Departmental policies, as well as operating unit policies and procedures related to the purchase card. All purchases made with the purchase card must comply with all procedures and documentation requirements that apply to the procurement action.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1332.11 - Electronic Funds Transfer
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determi ned that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30727 Su m m ar y C al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. M A R C U S JO N E S, al so know n as M ac D addy D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c t of Loui si ana U SD C N o. 5: 99- C R

- 50046- 1
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * M ar c us J o ne s , fe de r al pr i s o ne r # 10 25 0- 03 5, w as s e nt e nc e d t o 18 8 m o nt hs i n pr i son after p l ea d i n g gu i l ty to con sp i ra cy to p oss ess w i th i n ten t t o d i stri b u te 50 g r am s o r m o r e o f

c r ac k c o c ai ne a nd f

i ve ki l o gr am s o r m o r e of po w de r c o c ai ne i n v i o l at i o n o f

2 1 U
. S. C. § § 8 41 ( a) ( 1) a nd 8 46. F o l l o w i ng am e ndm e nt s t o t he S en t en ci n g G u id e li n es governi n g crack of fen ses, t h e di st ri ct court reduced Jon es’ s sentence t o 151 m on t h s i n pri son, t h e l ow est poi n t i n th e a m e n d ed gu i del i n es r an ge. Jon es app eal s t h at he shou l d h ave recei ved an even short er United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-30727 Document: 00511049740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2010N o. 08- 30727

See United States v. Coo ley , 5 9 0F
. 3 d2 9 3 , 2 9 7

– 9 8( 5 thC ir . 2 0 0 9); Uni ted Sta t esv . 1 Evans , 5 8 7F .3 d 66 7 , 6 7 1

– 7 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 9); Un ited St atesv . Do u b li n , 57 2 F .3d 2 35, 237–39 (5 thC ir .) , cert . de nied , 1 3 0S
. C t. 5 1 7( 2 0 0 9). m odi f i ed s ent enc e, but our r ec ent dec i si ons c onc er ni ng 18 U
. S. C
. § 3582( c)( 2) p roce ed i n gs fo r e c lo s e J o n e s ’ s v a r io u s ch a lle n g e s to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s j u d gm en t. 1 AF F I RMED. Case: 08-30727 Document: 00511049740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LONNIE CAMMON, #236498, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-674-WKW

)

DOCTOR SEDIET, et al., )

)

 Defendants )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for order requiring defendants to transport

plaintiff to a free-world hospital filed by the plaintiff on August 16, 2006 (Court Doc.

No. 10), and as the plaintiff has set forth no facts which warrant such action, it is

ORDERED that the motion is hereby DENIED.

Done this 17th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00674-WKW-TFM Document 12 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
33.214 Alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 5452.233-90015452.233-9001 Disputes –

Agreement to Use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) . in all solicitations unless the conditions at

FAR 33.203(b) apply.

Parent topic: SUBPART 33.2 – DISPUTES AND APPEALS
```

[109th Congress Public Law 316]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ316.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 1742]]

Public Law 109-316
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
    To extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business 
         Administration. <<NOTE: Oct. 10, 2006 -  [H.R. 6159]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TEMPORARY EXTENSION.

    Any program, authority, or provision, including any pilot program, 
authorized under the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) or the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) as of 
September 30, 2006, that is scheduled to expire on or after September 
30, 2006 and before February 2, 2007, shall remain authorized through 
February 2, 2007, under the same terms and conditions in effect on 
September 30, 2006.

    Approved October 10, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6159:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Sept. 26, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
120 STAT. 1746 PUBLIC LAW 109–319—OCT. 11, 2006

Public Law 109–319

109th Congress

An Act

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility

of designating portions of Ste. Genevieve County in the State of Missouri as

a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ste. Genevieve County National

Historic Site Study Act of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) AREA.—The term ‘‘Area’’ means Ste. Genevieve County,

Missouri, which includes the Bequette-Ribault, St. GemmeAmoureaux, and Wilhauk homes, and the related and supporting historical assets located in Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri.

(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National

Park Service.

SEC. 3. STUDY.

(a) In General.—Not later than 3 years after the date on

which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary

shall, in consultation with the State of Missouri—

(1) complete a study on the suitability and feasibility of

designating the Area as a unit of the National Park System,

which shall include the potential impact that designation of

the area as a unit of the National Park System is likely to

have on land within the proposed area or bordering the proposed area that is privately owned at the time that the study

is conducted; and

(2) submit to the Committee on Resources of the House

of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources of the Senate a report describing the findings of

the study.

Reports.

Deadline.

Ste. Genevieve

County National

Historic Site

Study Act of

2005.

Conservation.

Oct. 11, 2006

[H.R. 1728]

PUBLIC LAW 109–319—OCT. 11, 2006 120 STAT. 1747

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1728:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 109–338 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 109–246 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Feb. 28, considered and passed House.

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

(b) Contents.—The study under subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–1

et seq.).

Approved October 11, 2006.
October 25 , 2011



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ORION HAROLD , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00650

- CV V.

HONG GAO , Appellee

____________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on July 18, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by rea son of this appeal be paid by ORION
HAROLD

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I, Gregory A. Wells, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

To the best of my knowledge and
belief, the quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 14, 2003, by NTS-Properties VI, a Maryland Limited Partnership (the
Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of NTS-Properties VI, a Maryland Limited Partnership.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NTS-Properties VI, a Maryland
Limited Partnership and will be retained by NTS-Properties VI, a Maryland Limited
Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

/s/ Gregory A. Wells

---

Chief Financial Officer of NTS Capital Corporation,
General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates VI,
General Partner of NTS-Properties VI, a Maryland Limited Partnership

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C. d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv728-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion for leave to reply

(Doc. No. 75) is granted.

DONE, this the 22nd day of August, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 77 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 1 of 1
160 So.2d 230

#### Leo STACK v. Mr. and Mrs. T. C. IRWIN and Mrs. Gertrude Gardner, Inc.

No. 47112.

Feb. 14, 1964.

Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.

158 So.2d 853.

*648It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### § 1707.206 Final determination.

The General Counsel makes the final determination on demands and requests to employees for production of official records and information or testimony. All final determinations are within the sole discretion of the General Counsel. The General Counsel will notify the requester and the court or other authority of the final determination, the reasons for the grant or denial of the demand or request, and any conditions that the General Counsel may impose on the release of records or information, or on the testimony of a DNFSB employee.
### STATUS - POPs Protocol 

# nited Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on long-range 

## Trartsboundarv Air Pollution 

# Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Status of ratification of The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) as of 2 September 2009 

### Page 1 

### of2

blic

lechtensteln nature


### 18.12.1998 06.1998 Ratification

## *

mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\jhsmith\MyDocuments\MyFiles\PCB ANPR\Elect... 2/3/2010

### STATUS

-POPs Protocol

24.06. .05.2000 [Luxernbourq 

### (2) IMalta 'VJvllacv 'IV Ill;;**II;;~ro /I~l;;lIll;;l**  lands 

### 24.06.1998 23.06.2000 (At) 

### 24.06.1998 16.12.1999 (Is)**/I~V** vvay 

### (2) IPoland 

### 24.06.1998 IPortugal 

### 24.06.1998 IRepublic of Moldova 

### 24.06.1998 01.10.2002 (8-) IRo'"'lania 

### 24.06.1998 05.09.2003 

### (BJ P issian Federation San Marino**I~** Ivl;; UIO 

### 24.06.1998 .12.2002(At) ISlovakia 

### (2) le'I

. 

### 24 06.1998 15.11.2005 (R) Plvvt::llia ISpain 

### 25.06.1998 II

## 1[.}~.~Q.~.j:~~§::.:] 19.01.2000 (8) land 

### 24.06.1998 14.11.2000 (8) The former YL IV Republic of Macedonia Turkey [Ukraine 

### 24.06.1998 

### Iu. ited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 

### 24.06.1998 02.09.2005 (8) Ireland United States of A II;; I\-a 

### 24.06.1998 IEulopean Community 

### 24.06.1998 30.04.2004 (Ap) [Total: 

### 36 29 

### Page 2of2

mhtml:file://C:\Documents andSettings\jhsmith\MyDocuments\MyFiles\PCB ANPR\Elect... 2/3/2010
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16-2 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16-2 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16-2 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16-2 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16-2 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16-2 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16-2 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16-2 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16-2 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 16-2 Filed 10/09/2006 Page 10 of 10
SUBPART 38.90 DLA–MANAGED FEDERAL

SUPPLY SCHEDULES

(Revised December 8, 2020 through PROCLTR 2021-02)

Parent topic: PART 38 – FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE CONTRACTING

38.9000 Scope.

This subpart prescribes policy and procedures for awarding and administering DLA-managed

Federal Supply Schedules, including those for placement on FedMall.

38.9001 General.

(a) Under the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.

486(e)), the Administrator of General Services designates and authorizes the DoD to procure and

supply personal property and non-personal services and perform related functions in support of the

federal civil agencies within the terms of the Agreement between the Department of Defense and the

General Services Administration Governing Supply Management Relationships Under the National

Supply System (

https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/Acquisition/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2F

sites%2FAcquisition%2FShared%20Documents%2FJ%2D72%2FPROCLTR%2DFiles&FolderCTID=0

x01200080FADA3E9BBF764593CF2E25DC6FA477 ), dated February 19, 1971, and the 1972

Supplement. Enter your email address to access documents.

(b) In accordance with the 1971 Agreement, both GSA and DoD agreed that “GSA and DSA (Defense

Supply Agency, now DLA) will develop and maintain Federal Supply Schedule type contracts for

Groups, Commodities, or items assigned under terms of this Agreement.”

(c) In establishing and maintaining a uniform federal supply catalog system, GSA and DoD shall

coordinate to avoid unnecessary duplication (40 U.S.C. 506).

38.9002 DLA–Managed Federal Supply Schedules for

FedMall.

(a) DCSO contracting officers shall—

(1) Use delegated authority from GSA to establish Federal Supply Schedules in compliance with FAR

Part 38 and the Agreement between the DoD and GSA Governing Supply Management Relationships

Under the National Supply System, dated February 19, 1971.

(2) Consider GSA Acquisition Manual (GSAM) guidelines and GSA contracting practices when

establishing Federal Supply Schedules. Contracting officers may use specific GSA clauses,
procedures, and practices if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

(3) Determine the prices of fixed-price supplies to be fair and reasonable for the purpose of

establishing the Federal Supply Schedule.

(4) Determine in writing contract termination is appropriate prior to removing a contract from

FedMall.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Techdyne, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry
J. Pardon, 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:

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

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


                                          /s/ Barry J. Pardon
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Barry J. Pardon
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2002
Description of amendments to option agreements made November 16, 2009



 Exhibit 10.3 
 DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT TO OUTSTANDING OPTION AGREEMENTS MADE 
 EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 16, 2009 
 In light of the declaration and payment by the Company of an extraordinary dividend of $7.65 to
stockholders in October 2009 and in light of the provisions in the outstanding stock option agreements issued under the 2008 equity program pursuant to the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) that contemplate that the Annual Operational
Performance per Diluted Share (“AOP”) targets may be adjusted based on specified events, including an extraordinary dividend, in order to prevent dilution of the benefits intended to be provided to participants under the Plan, on
November 16, 2009, the Company’s Compensation Committee determined that the AOP targets in the outstanding stock option agreements should be adjusted to take into account the effects of the dividend. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee
adopted the following amendments to the outstanding stock option agreements as of November 16, 2009. On November 16, 2009, the full Board of Directors approved the same amendments with respect to outstanding stock option agreements with
non-employee directors in effect as of November 16, 2009. 
 (1) The table in Exhibit B to all of such outstanding option
agreements was amended by deleting the existing table and substituting therefor the following: 
 Annual Operational
Performance per Diluted Share 
  

													
	 	  	Minimum Vesting
(12.5%
Growth)	  	Maximum Vesting
(20%
Growth)
	 Fiscal Year
 (A)
	  	% of Shares
Vesting
(B)	 	 	YE Operating
Performance
(per Diluted Share)
(C)	  	% of Shares
Vesting
(D)	 	 	YE Operating
Performance
(per Diluted Share)
(E)
	 2009
	  	3.75	% 	 	$	41.77	  	15	% 	 	$	44.56
	 2010
	  	3.75	% 	 	$	38.40	  	15	% 	 	$	44.30
	 2011
	  	3.75	% 	 	$	43.20	  	15	% 	 	$	53.20
	 2012
	  	3.75	% 	 	$	48.50	  	15	% 	 	$	63.80
	 2013
	  	3.75	% 	 	$	54.70	  	15	% 	 	$	76.50

 (2) Section 2 of Exhibit B to all of such outstanding option agreements was
amended by deleting the second and third paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor the following: 
 “The
Cumulative Operational Amount shall mean the percentage of shares of Stock covered by the Option equal to: 
 (a)
Zero if the Cumulative Operational Performance per Diluted Share is less than $226.57. 
 (b) Six and one-quarter
percent (6.25%) if the Cumulative Operational Performance per Diluted Share is $226.57. 
 (c) Twenty-five
percent (25%) if the Cumulative Operational Performance per Diluted Share is at least $282.36. 
 If the
Cumulative Operational Performance per Diluted Share is between $226.57 and $282.36, the Cumulative Operational Amount shall be determined by means of linear interpolation.”
1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Jonathan Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2002

___________ Audie Lynn Fox, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Sheryl Ramstad Hvass; Frank W. * Wood, Sued as Frank W. Wood; * [UNPUBLISHED] Gothriel J. LaFleur, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 26, 2001 Filed: December 20, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Audie Lynn Fox appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summaryjudgment in his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 complaint alleging that thenCommissioner Frank Wood denied him parole in 1995 for purely retaliatory reasons. Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that Fox’s complaint is barred-2- - by a settlement agreement in which Fox relinquished his rights to bring future actions against past or present Minnesota officers based on events occurring prior to March 1996. We do not address Fox’s argument that the agreement was invalidated when the Minnesota Department of Corrections transferred Fox from the St. Cloud corrections facility to the Stillwater facility. Fox raised this issue for the first time on appeal. This issue remains unresolved as it was not presented to the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.