alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-21164

Conference Calendar

 

ALI REZA DADI; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

ALI REZA DADI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LYNN N. HUGHES, U.S. District Judge; 

MICHAEL T. FLOREANS; JAMES BUCHANAN; 

BRIAN T. MOFFATT; JACK ZIMMERMAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CV-3276

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ali Reza Dadi, federal prisoner No. 59270-079, and his wife

Carmen appeal the dismissal as frivolous of a civil rights

complaint seeking damages for an alleged conspiracy to obtain the

wrongful civil forfeiture of their home following Ali Reza Dadi’s

conviction for bank fraud and money laundering offenses. We find
No. 02-21164

-2-

** 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of the

complaint as frivolous. 

For the first time on appeal, the Dadis argue that the

forfeiture was wrongful because Ali Reza Dadi was an innocent

owner of the property; that the forfeiture violates principles of

double jeopardy; and, alternatively, that Carmen Dadi and the

Dadi’s three children were innocent owners of the property.

Absent exceptional circumstances that implicate the

interests of justice, we generally do not review issues not

raised in the district court. Kinash v. Callahan, 129 F.3d 736,

739 n.10 (5th Cir. 1997). Our review of issues raised for the

first time on appeal is limited to errors that are “plain” and

that “affect substantial rights.” See United States v. Caverley,

37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

Dadi’s claim that he is an innocent owner implicates the

validity of his conviction and is thus barred by Heck v.

Humphrey.

** The in rem forfeiture of Dadi’s house will not

support a double jeopardy claim. United States v. Ursery,

518 U.S. 267, 288 (1996); United States v. Garcia Abrego,

141 F.3d 142, 173-74 (5th Cir. 1998). The “innocent owner” claim

of Carmen Dadi and the Dadis’ children is based on evidence not

presented to the district court. As the district court did not

have an opportunity to consider this issue, the error, if any,
No. 02-21164

-3-

cannot have been “plain.” Robertson v. Plano City of Texas,

70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995). 

This appeal is without arguable merit, and it is DISMISSED

AS FRIVOLOUS. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The Dadis are WARNED that future

frivolous appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
# Comments on: 2020-1510: Arbmetrics, LLC v. Dexcom Inc.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d- 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Analogic Corporation (the Company) for the period ended January 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Bernard M. Gordon, Executive Chairman of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

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

Date: March 8, 2007



/s/ Bernard M. GordonBernard M. GordonExecutive Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)
# Comments on: 22-1415: MASIMO CORPORATION v. SOTERA WIRELESS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential
§ 302-5.104 What factors must we consider in determining whether to offer an employee the fixed amount househunting trip subsistence expense reimbursement option? You must consider the following factors: ( a ) *Ease of administration.* Payment of a per diem allowance under part 302-4 of this chapter requires you to review claims for the validity, accuracy, and reasonableness of each expense amount, except for meals and incidental expenses. Lump sum househunting trip subsistence expenses reimbursement is easier to administer because you do not have to review expense amounts.
( b ) *Cost considerations.* You must weigh the cost of each reimbursement option on a case-by-case basis.
( c ) *Treatment of employees.* The employee is allowed to choose between a per diem allowance under part 302-4 of this chapter and lump sum househunting trip subsistence expenses reimbursement when you offer the lump sum reimbursement method. You therefore should weigh employee morale and productivity considerations against actual cost considerations in determining which method to offer.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated and amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18337, 18338, Apr. 1, 2011]
No. 11-9374.

#### Martin *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000005227
<NAME> AMERICAN INDEMNITY FINANCIAL CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        69,822,812
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  16,359,186
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              86,181,998
<CASH>                                       9,398,669
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                          26,857,523
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       8,720,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             159,570,779
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             74,073,507
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         33,445,003
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                364,886
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,541,351
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,983,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               159,570,779
<PREMIUMS>                                  46,651,215
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          3,557,594
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           1,446,002
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 670,714
<BENEFITS>                                  38,266,727
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        19,099,331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,834,402)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,834,402)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,834,402)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.46)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# Comments on: 22-1433: TRUSTID, INC. v. NEXT CALLER, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential
071P15

#### State v. Christopher Allen Reese

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-593)

Denied
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
ARTICLE: 5
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
registrant's consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2000 and consolidated
statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2000, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                            0000006494
<NAME>                           Andrea Electronics Corporation
<CURRENCY>                       U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                  1
<CASH>                           8,093,314
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                    2,737,273
<ALLOWANCES>                       202,521
<INVENTORY>                      7,089,365
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                18,213,259
<PP&E>                           1,848,314
<DEPRECIATION>                   2,371,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  48,189,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            4,841,330
<BONDS>                          1,492,539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            4,801,749
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                         6,904,036
<OTHER-SE>                      30,921,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    48,189,048
<SALES>                          3,201,484
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 3,201,484
<CGS>                            2,399,175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    2,399,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 3,291,776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 (87,172)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2,484,621)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (2,484,621)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,484,621)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.19)


</TABLE>
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.53


Amendment No. 5 to
USG Corporation
Non-Employee Director
Compensation Program 
(As Amended and Restated February 13, 2008 
and amended November 12, 2010, November 10, 2011, 
November 14, 2013 and November 13, 2014)




Section 2 of the USG Corporation Non-Employee Director Program (As Amended and Restated February 13, 2008 and amended November 12, 2010, November 10, 2011, November 14, 2013 and November 13, 2014) is amended effective January 1, 2017 to read in its entirety as follows: 


		
	2.
	An additional cash retainer of $20,000 per year for the chair of the Audit Committee of the Board, $15,000 per year for the chair of the Compensation and Organization Committee of the Board, and $10,000 per year for the chairs of the other Board committees, each payable in equal quarterly installments on the last business day of each calendar quarter, and an additional cash retainer of $125,000 per year for the Board’s Non-Executive Chairman, payable in equal quarterly installments on the last business day of each calendar quarter commencing with the first quarter of 2017.




















November 10, 2016
§ 301-10.112 What requirements must be met to use a non-contract fare? ( a ) Before purchasing a non-contract fare you must meet one of the exception requirements listed in § 301-10.111 and show approval on your travel authorization to use a non-contract fare; and
( b ) If the non-contract fare is non-refundable, restricted, or has specific eligibility requirements, you must know or reasonably anticipate, based on your planned trip, that you will use the ticket; and
( c ) Your agency must determine that the proposed non-contract transportation is practical and cost effective for the Government.
[FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55704, Sept. 12, 2022]
§ 109-25.350 Furnishing of Government clothing and individual equipment. ( a ) Government-owned clothing and individual equipment may be furnished to employees: ( 1 ) For protection from physical injury or occupational disease; or
( 2 ) When employees could not reasonably be required to furnish them as a part of the personal clothing and equipment needed to perform the regular duties of the position to which they are assigned or for which services were engaged.
( b ) This section does not apply to uniforms or uniform allowances under the Federal Employees Uniform Allowance Act of 1954, 84 Public Law 37, as amended.
387P05-3

#### State v. Earl James Watson

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR (COAP15-753)

Dismissed

Ervin, J.,

recused
Case 9:22-cv-81758-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 1 of 2
Case 9:22-cv-81758-XXXX Document 1-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 2 of 2
natural gas on the Union Gas system and the typical ranges for these values (allowing for the

different sources).

Note that there is no guarantee of the following composition at your location or as an overall

system average. Since the different gas supplies enter the Union Gas system at different

locations, the exact composition at any site will vary among the different regions. The system

average heating value will depend on the mix of gas supplies (which is increasingly controlled byour customers), and therefore can vary from the typical value listed below.

Component

Typical Analysis Range

(mole %) (mole %)

Methane 95.2 87.0 - 96.0Ethane 2.5 1.5 - 5.1

Propane 0.2 0.1 - 1.5

iso - Butane 0.03 0.01 - 0.3normal - Butane 0.03 0.01 - 0.3iso - Pentane 0.01 trace - 0.14

normal - Pentane 0.01 trace - 0.04

Hexanes plus 0.01 trace - 0.06

* The j9ating value is the total heat obtaine y complete ombustijiat Sostantpressure of a unit volume of gas in air, including the heat released by condensing the water
The water vapour content of natural gas in the Union Gas system is less than 80 mg/rn 3,and is

typically 16 to 32 mg/rn 3.

Typical Combustion Properties of Natural Gas

Note that there is no guarantee that the combustion properties at your location will be exactly as

shown. The properties shown are an overall average on the Union Gas system.

Ignition Point: 593 °C *

Flammability Limits 4% - l6% (volume % in

air) *

Theoretical Flame Temperature (stoichiometric air/fuel 1960 °C (3562 °F)

ratio)

Maximum Flame Velocity 0.3 rn/sRelative density (specific gravity) 0.58

Wobbe Index (Btu/scf) 1328 *

t Information provided is from North American Combustion Handbook, Volume ,3rd edition,North American Mfg Co., 1986.* Information provided is from the Chemical Composition of Natural Gas as shown on the chart

above.

* Information provided is from the Union Gas Material Safety Data Sheet (WHMIS).

2 of2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2911

REGINA K. SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-93-1453-3-OBC)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Regina K. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Pharr Pearson, Stephen

Carrington Mitchell, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART,

Columbia, South Carolina; Joseph Dawson Shine, SOUTH CAROLINA

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting

summary judgment to the Appellee in this action alleging employment

discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Smith v. South Carolina Budget &

Control, No. CA-93-1453-3-OBC (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 1995). 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
§ 109-43.502 Holding agency responsibilities. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) Property which remains excess after utilization screening within the general foreign geographical area where the property is located shall be reported to the accountable field office or Headquarters program organization for consideration for return to the United States for further DOE or other Federal utilization. The decision to return property will be based on such factors as acquisition cost, residual value, condition, usefulness, and cost of transportation.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16388]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Applicant

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as 
Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR part 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
D.C. 20573.
    Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary Applicants:

F.M.I. Cargo Shipping, Inc., 1022 W. Irving Park Road, Bensenville, IL 
60106. Officers: Felix Wong, Secretary (Qualifying Individual); Wai-Fan 
Yeung, President.
DVN Carriers, LP, 6802 Mapleridge Street, Suite 207, Bellaire, TX 
77401. Officers: C. Rider Griswold, Managing Partner; Madelaine 
Griswold, Partner.
Jenkar International Freight Ltd., 150-30 132nd Avenue, Jamaica, NY 
11434. Officers: Donald James Wolfe, Director (Qualifying Individual).

    Ocean Freight Forwarders--Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicants:

Farris Customs Brokers, Inc., 13591 McGregor Bl., Suite 20, Fort Myers, 
FL 33912. Officers: Donald G. Farris, Sr., Vice President (Qualifying 
Individual); Carolyn D. Wilmot, President.
Cargomar Overseas, Inc., 1325 N.W. 78 Avenue, Suite 100, Miami, FL 
33126. Officer: Atilio C. Fernandez, President (Qualifying Individual).
Ohlson International Logistics Incorporated, 960 Lunt Avenue, Elk Grove 
Village, IL 60007. Officers: Michael J. Ohlson, President (Qualifying 
Individual); Joseph Calabria, Vice President.

    Dated: June 23, 2000.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16388 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### § 105-64.203 How do I request access in writing?

If you request access in writing, mark both the envelope and the request letter “Privacy Act Request”. Include in the request your full name and address; a description of the records you seek; the title and number of the system of records as published in the Federal Register; a brief description of the nature, time, and place of your association with GSA; and any other information you believe will help in locating the record.
§ 302-9.201 In what situations will my agency pay to transport a POV from my post of duty? Your agency will pay to transport a POV from your post of duty when: ( a ) You are transferred back to the official station (including post of duty) from which you transferred to your current post of duty;
( b ) You are transferred to a new official station within CONUS;
( c ) You are transferred to a new post of duty, where your agency determines that use of a POV at that location is not in the interest of the Government;
( d ) You separate from Government service after completion of an agreed period of service at the post of duty where your agency determined the use of a POV to be in the interest of the Government;
( e ) You separate from Government service prior to completion of an agreed period of service at the post of duty where your agency determined the use of a POV to be in the interest of the Government, and the separation is for reasons beyond your control and acceptable to your agency; or
( f ) Conditions change at your post of duty such that use of the POV no longer is in the best interest of the Government.
# Comments on: Notice of Court Closure on December 24, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      15,480,000
<SECURITIES>                                    68,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,106,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,868,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,324,000
<PP&E>                                       4,319,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,920,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,060,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,156,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 11,382,000
<COMMON>                                        18,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,956,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,060,000
<SALES>                                    103,400,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           103,400,000
<CGS>                                       75,297,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,469,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,643,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             779,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,217,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,761,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,978,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,978,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.52)


</TABLE>