alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

STACEY L. SALTERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 98-2717

DECIPHER, INCORPORATED; STEVE

CARPER, Manager,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-97-1178-2)

Submitted: May 13, 1999

Decided: May 21, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Stacey L. Salters, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jon Barry, Lisa Elizabeth

Halleck, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, Norfolk, Virginia; David Nash

Payne, WILLIAMS, KELLY & GREER, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Salters appeals the district court's orders dismissing without prejudice Salters' claims against Defendant Carper and granting Defendant

Decipher, Inc.'s motion for judgment as a matter of law in Salters'

employment discrimination case.

The district court properly dismissed Salters' claims against Carper

because Salters failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See

United Air Lines v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 558 (1977); Alvarado v.

Board of Trustees of Montgomery Community College , 848 F.2d 457

(4th Cir. 1988). Therefore, we affirm the order of dismissal on the

reasoning of the district court. Salters v. Decipher, Inc., No. CA-97-

1178-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 1998).

The standard of review for the grant of a motion for judgment as

a matter of law is whether the evidence is so substantial or conclusive

that any contrary verdict would necessarily be based upon speculation

or conjecture. See Gairola v. Virginia Dep't of Gen. Servs., 753 F.2d

1281, 1285 (4th Cir. 1985). We review de novo the grant or denial

of a motion for judgment as a matter of law. See id. In considering

such a motion, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable

to the party against whom the motion was made. See Garraghty v.

Jordon, 830 F.2d 1295, 1302 (4th Cir. 1987). 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. Salters

v. Decipher, Inc., No. CA-97-1178-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 24, 1998).

Although we conclude that the district court's grant of judgment as

a matter of law was proper, we note that because trial proceedings

were conducted before the court, the appropriate authority for granting the motion was Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), not Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a),

as stated in the court's order and opinion.

 2
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

 3
#### HENRY D. OWENS v. THE UNITED STATES

[57 C. Cls. 625; 265 U. S. 567]

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below for a portion of the amount claimed. On plaintiff’s appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and *the*Supreme Court decided:

Suit for damages against the United States under a contract for the removal of garbage from Camp Meade. Judgment for claimant for part of claim. Appeal to secure larger recovery. Question turns on the constructions of contract. This court concurs in the view of the Court of Claims, and the judgment is *affirmed.*

Decided April 28, 1924.

*Per curiam:*
```

[107th Congress Public Law 168]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ168.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 131]]

Public Law 107-168
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
    To extend the authority of the Export-Import Bank until May 31, 
                2002. <<NOTE: May 1, 2002 -  [S. 2248]>> 

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXPORT-IMPORT BANK. <<NOTE: 12 USC 635f note.>> 

    Notwithstanding the dates specified in section 7 of the Export-
Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635f) and section 1(c) of Public Law 
103-428, the Export-Import Bank of the United States shall continue to 
exercise its functions in connection with and in furtherance of its 
objects and purposes through May 31, 2002.

    Approved May 1, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2248:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            Apr. 24, considered and passed Senate.
            Apr. 30, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 Execution Version
 THIRD AMENDMENT  Dated as of September 27, 2007
 THIRD AMENDMENT Amendment CKX, INC., Borrower BEAR STEARNS CORPORATE LENDING INC. Administrative Agent
 Preliminary Statements
 Credit Agreement
   NOW, THEREFORE
 SECTION 1. Amendment to Credit Agreement.
  FXRE
 FXRE Exchange provided
 Third Amendment




---



##### 



Third Amendment Effective Date
  provided
  provided
  SECTION 2. Conditions to Effectiveness. Amendment Effective Date
 Consent
     2




---



##### 



SECTION 3. Representations and Warranties
 Authority
 Enforceability
 Representations and Warranties
 No Conflicts
 3




---



##### 



No Default
 SECTION 4. Reference to and Effect on Credit Agreement.
    SECTION 5. Counterparts.
 SECTION 6. Severability.
 SECTION 7. Headings.
 SECTION 8. Governing Law.
  4




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 CKX, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Thomas P. BensonName:
    
    Thomas P. BensonTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer
 5




---



##### 



BEAR STEARNS CORPORATE LENDING INC.,asAdministrative AgentBy:
    
    /s/ Victor F. BulzacchelliName:
    
    Victor F. BulzacchelliTitle:
    
    Vice President
 6
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 6042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2276]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the 
Microscopic Imaging Study Section, February 5, 2009, 8 a.m. to February 
5, 2009, 7 p.m., Holiday Inn San Francisco Fisherman's Wharf, 1300 
Columbus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94133 which was published in the 
Federal Register on January 16, 2009, 74 FR 3062-3064.
    This AED meeting will be held at the National Institutes of Health, 
6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20882.
    The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to 
the public.

    Dated: January 27, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-2276 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2310
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES; COLONEL MASSENGILL, Interim Director, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; ROGER CHAFFE; DON HINCHEY; DAN HALL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-102-1-JPJ) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William C. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William C. Thompson appeals a district court order summarily dismissing his civil rights complaint for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and opinion and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. SeeThompson v. Virginia Dep’t of Game & Inland Fisheries , No. CA-05-102-1-JPJ (W.D. Va. Nov. 14, 2005). We deny Thompson’s motion for appo intment of counsel. 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
§ 21.252 Job development and placement services. ( a ) *General.* Job development and placement services may include: ( 1 ) Direct placement assistance by VA;
( 2 ) Utilization of the job development and placement services of: ( i ) DVOP (Disabled Veterans Outreach Program) specialists;
( ii ) Programs authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended;
( iii ) The State Employment Services and the Veterans' Employment and Training Service of the United States Department of Labor;
( iv ) The Office of Personnel Management; and
( v ) The services of any other public, or nonprofit organization having placement services available; and
( vi ) Any for-profit agency in a case in which it has been determined that comparable services are not available through public and nonprofit agencies and comparable services cannot be provided cost-effectively by the public and nonprofit agencies listed in this paragraph. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3117(a)(2))
( b ) *Promotion of employment and training opportunities.* As funding permits, VA employees engaged in the administration of Chapter 31 will promote the establishment of employment, training, and related opportunities to accomplish the purposes described in § 21.1. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3101)
( c ) *Advocacy responsibility.* VA shall take reasonable steps to ensure that a veteran being provided employment services receives the benefit of any applicable provision of law or regulation providing for special consideration or emphasis or preference of the veteran in employment or training, especially programs and activities identified in the preceding paragraphs of this section. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 523)
( d ) *Interagency coordination.* VA employees providing assistance to Chapter 31 participants shall coordinate their job development, placement, promotional, and advocacy activities with similar or related activities of: ( 1 ) The Department of Labor and State employment security agencies as provided by written agreement or other arrangement;
( 2 ) The State approving agencies:
( 3 ) Other public, for-profit and nonprofit agencies providing employment and related services.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3116, 3117, Pub. L. 100-689)
[49 FR 40814, Oct. 18, 1984, as amended at 55 FR 42187, Oct. 18, 1990; 62 FR 17708, Apr. 11, 1997]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The
Cosmetic Center, Inc.'s June 27, 1997 financial statements and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                           2,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10
<INVENTORY>                                     83,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,277
<PP&E>                                          21,562
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,808
<BONDS>                                         46,255
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,693
<SALES>                                         49,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,332
<CGS>                                           33,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,964)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,984)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,984)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.89)
        



</TABLE>
§ 1081.207 Production of witness statements. ( a ) *Availability.* Any respondent may move that the Office of Enforcement produce for inspection and copying any statement of any person called or to be called as a witness by the Office of Enforcement that pertains, or is expected to pertain, to the witness's direct testimony and that would be required to be produced pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500, if the adjudication proceeding were a criminal proceeding. For purposes of this section, the term “statement” has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3500(e). Such production will be made at a time and place fixed by the hearing officer and will be made available to any party, provided, however, that the production must be made under conditions intended to preserve the items to be inspected or copied.
( b ) *Failure to produce—harmless error.* In the event that a statement required to be made available to a respondent pursuant to this section is not made available by the Office of Enforcement, no rehearing or redecision of a proceeding already heard or decided will be required unless the respondent establishes that the failure to make the statement available was not harmless error.
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 32824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12214]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fourteenth Meeting: RTCA Tactical Operations Committee (TOC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Fourteenth RTCA Tactical Operations Committee 
Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
Fourteenth RTCA Tactical Operations Committee meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 23, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or Trin 
Mitra, TOC Secretary, RTCA, Inc., tmitra@rtca.org, (202) 330-0655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Tactical Operations Committee. The 
agenda will include the following:

Thursday, June 23, 2016

1. Opening of Meeting/Introduction of TOC Members--Co Chairs Dale 
Wright and Bryan Quigley
2. Official Statement of Designated Federal Official--Elizabeth Ray
3. Approval of April 4, 2016 Meeting Summary
4. FAA Update--Elizabeth Ray
5. Update from Ongoing Task Groups
    a. PBN Route Structure Task Group
    b. Graphical TFR Task Group
6. FAA Responses from Previous Recommendations
    a. Airport Construction
    b. National Procedure Assessment
    c. NorCal Noise Initiative
    d. Caribbean Operations
    e. Class B Airspace
7. Briefing on Commercial Space
8. Update on NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC)
9. Briefing on Drone Advisory Committee (DAC)
10. Other Business
11. Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be 
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain 
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a 
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services 
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-12214 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
**Exhibit 31(b)****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**I, Thomas N. Tipton Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interphase Corporation (the “Company”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such an internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors:(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.           Date: August 11, 2006    Signature: /s/ Thomas N. Tipton Jr. Chief Financial Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 249 

To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild 

free-roaming horses and burros. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2007 

Mr. RAHALL (for himself and Mr. WHITFIELD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and 

slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SALE OF WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND 

4 BURROS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(d)(5) of Public Law 

6 92–195 (16 U.S.C. 1333(d)(5)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking the period and inserting the fol8 lowing: ‘‘Provided, That no wild free-roaming horse 

9 or burro or its remains may be sold or transferred 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 249 IH

1 for consideration for processing into commercial 

2 products.’’; and 

3 (2) by striking subsection (e). 

4 (b) CRIMINAL PROVISIONS.—Section (8)(a)(4) of 

5 Public Law 92–195 (16 U.S.C. 1338(a)(4)) is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘except as provided in section 3(e),’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
## 2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-9-2008 

# G a r tne r v . U SA
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-2344

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" G a r tne r v . U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1775. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1775

## NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2344

___________ JOHN B. GARTNER, Appellant
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 07-mc-00052) District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sanchez

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 20, 2007 Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and WEIS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 9, 2008)

___________

OPINION

___________ PER CURIAM Appellant John B. Gartner appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his petition to quash two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) third-party recordkeeper summonses. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Moutevelis v. United States ,

## 727 F.2d 313, 314 (3d Cir. 1984) (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7609(h)(1)). Under 26 U.S.C. § 7601, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to make inquiries of every person who may be liable to pay tax. Further, under 26 U.S.C. § 7602, the Secretary is vested with the authority to issue summonses in order to fulfill the Secretary’s investigatory obligation. These summonses include third-party recordkeeper summonses which may be issued to banks and credit unions, among other entities. See26 U.S.C. § 7609. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Gartner’s petition to quash. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order entered April 20, 2007.