alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lonnie D. SNELLING, Appellant, v. PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE, INC.; Publishers Clearing House; Campus Subscriptions, Inc.; PHC Executives, Inc.; Deborah J. Holland, Employee; Robin B. Smith, Employee; Andrew C. Goldberg, Employee; Margarete Thuemmler, Employee; Dorothy Addeo, Employee; William Delano, Employee; Peter E. Derow, Employee; Patrick R. Edwards, Employee; Ira D. Hall, Employee; William B. O’Connor, Employee; John Princiotta, Employee, Appellees.

No. 03-2195.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 28, 2004.

Decided March 11, 2004.

Lonnie D. Snelling, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Rebecca Rhodes Jackson, Bryan & Cave, St. Louis, MO, Carolyn W. Jaffe, Morgan & Lewis, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie D. Snelling appeals the dismissal of his civil complaint asserting violations of Missouri law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). After careful review of the record we conclude the district court properly dismissed Snelling’s claims against Publishers Clearing House, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction. Cf*. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine. Inc.,*465 U.S. 770, 781 n. 13, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984). The district court also properly dismissed Snelling’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. *See Gibson v. Brewer,*952 S.W.2d 239, 248-49 (Mo.1997) (en banc) (to prevail on claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff must show that defendant should have realized its conduct involved unreasonable risk of causing distress, and emotional distress or mental injury must be medically diagnosable and *974sufficiently severe to be medically significant).

The district court erred, however, in dis1 missing Snelling’s fraud and RICO claims. In doing so, the court relied on exhibits defendants submitted in support of their motion to dismiss, but Snelling had disputed the authenticity of these exhibits. In these circumstances, the district court should have converted the motion to one for summary judgment and allowed Snelling to respond, or it should have ruled on the motion to dismiss without considering defendants’ exhibits. We cannot say this error was harmless. *Cf. Country Club Estates, L.L.C. v. Toum of Loma Linda,*213 F.3d 1001, 1005-06 (8th Cir.2000) (failure to afford any notice, actual or constructive, that motion to dismiss would be treated as one for summary judgment required reversal where nonmovants asserted on appeal that they could have produced countervailing affidavits, and it could not be said that outcome would necessarily be in movants’ favor).

Accordingly, we affirm in part and remand for further proceedings on the fraud and RICO claims.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.725 Joinder of complainants and causes of action. ( a ) Two or more complainants may join in one complaint if their respective causes of action are against the same defendant and concern substantially the same facts and alleged violation of the Communications Act or Commission regulation or order.
( b ) Two or more grounds of complaint involving substantially the same facts may be included in one complaint, but should be separately stated and numbered.
[83 FR 44832, Sept. 4, 2018]
Comments on Proposed Corrections O’Hare, Andrew to: Keith Barnett 10/21/2010 03:43 PM Show Detail s
Keith, Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft correction language. My comments are reflected on the attached document as strike outs and inserts using “track changes.” I do not believe that the proposed changes would correct the clinker production monitoring issue I e

-mailed you about last week. I believe that Section 1350(d)( 2) and Section 60.63(b)(2) (discussed below), need specific clarifications, as the rule language in both places state: “maintain a record... within 30 days of the effective date of this rule (for existing sources).” (75 Fed. Reg. 55059 and 75 Fed. Reg. 55 035, respectively). The language in Section 60.63(b)(2) is potentially even more confusing, as the NSPS does not apply to existing (un

- modified) sources. Happy to discuss at your convenience. Regards, Andy

Andrew T. O'Hare, CAE Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey, Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 408

- 9494 Fax: (202) 408

- 0877 Cell: (202) 270

- 0094 e - mail: aohare@cement.org
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bancshares of Florida, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Michael L. McMullan, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                            
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: August 1, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael L. McMullan    
|                     |  |     |  | Michael L. McMullan,       
|                     |  |     |  | Principal Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40624-40625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16563]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2603-000]


Trigen-Syracuse Energy Corporation; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 26, 2000.
    Trigen-Syracuse Energy Corporation (Trigen-Syracuse) submitted for 
filing a rate schedule under which Trigen-Syracuse will engage in 
wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. Trigen-
Syracuse also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In 
particular, Trigen-Syracuse requested that the Commission grant blanket 
approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and 
assumptions of liability by Trigen-Syracuse.
    On June 22, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Trigen-Syracuse should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Trigen-Syracuse is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the

[[Page 40625]]

public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such 
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Trigen-Syracuse's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is July 24, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http;//www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16563 Filed 2-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from March 31,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          40,572
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,218
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                20,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 4,271
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    710,647
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,265
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,276
<LOANS>                                      2,055,772
<ALLOWANCE>                                     26,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,935,980
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,843,538
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            849,777
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                     242,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,935,980
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                148,013
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               58,942
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               206,955
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              79,534
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,822
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           76,599
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,020
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 569
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 54,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,212
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      33,212
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,004
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.32
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,012
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                11,291
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                26,002
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,078
<RECOVERIES>                                        17
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               26,160
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            26,160
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
No. 11-1157.

#### VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., fka CDO Plus Master Fund Ltd. *v.*Wachovia Bank, N. A., et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Texas, Carlos Bay to RedfishBay including Copano Bay [electronic resource]**
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.418/7:11314/

Item Number:0191-B-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000881134
 
1996-1998 | 2004-2008
 
May 1, 2020
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-2414: Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RywaJePXVa\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2414-amgen-inc-v-amneal-pharmaceuticals-llc-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-2414: Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2414-amgen-inc-v-amneal-pharmaceuticals-llc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=RywaJePXVa\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-2414: Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"RywaJePXVa\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-2414 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 17, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 Honorable James I. Cohn, United States District Judge for the Southern District of *

Florida, sitting by designation.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-16597

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00014-CR-ODE-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

PAUL BEASLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(October 17, 2007)

Before CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and COHN, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:
2

Paul Beasley appeals his conviction on two counts of armed bank robbery

under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and two counts of use of a firearm during a

crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(A)(iii). He appeals on

the grounds that a search of his home was executed pursuant to an invalid search

warrant; that the district court erred in excluding evidence of an FBI press release

which contradicted the Government’s evidence at trial; and that Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 12.1 is unconstitutional. We affirm. 

First, although we agree with Beasley that the search warrant in this case

was insufficient to establish probable cause to search his residence, we affirm the

denial of Beasley’s motion to suppress on the basis of the good faith exception to

an invalid warrant established in U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913 (1984). 

Second, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision, on the

basis of a lack of foundation, to exclude an FBI agent’s testimony, during crossexamination, about an FBI press release pertaining to a description of the get-away

car. The witness being examined did not write the press release, nor did he make

the statement contained within the press release. He testified that the press release

was a pro forma issuance from the Bureau, and though he was aware that a press

release was issued regarding Beasley, he never actually read the press release until

he was asked to do so by Beasley’s attorney. 
 Beasley also argues that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to prove that a 1

firearm was present during the armed robberies underlying two of the counts. Beasley concedes,

however, that our Circuit precedent in U.S. v. Hunt forecloses his argument. 187 F.3d 1269,

1271 (11th Cir. 1999)(“a § 924(c) conviction may be sustained by lay witness testimony that a

defendant carried or used a gun”). Beasley only seeks to argue it here in order to preserve the

issue for subsequent en banc or Supreme Court review. Therefore, though we generally consider

a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, we need not consider the

merits of this argument further. See Hunt, 187 F.3d at 1270.

3

We also reject, as meritless, Beasley’s argument that Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule

12.1 is unconstitutional.1

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**Section 302 CertificationI, Mark R. Newburg, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of VendingData Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances 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 included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial data information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:  April 12, 2007 By:  /s/Mark R. Newburg   Mark R. Newburg,   Chief Executive Officer, Principal
EX-10.24(a)



 Exhibit 10.24(a) 

SUMMARY OF 2016 COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 

(Effective as of December 31, 2016) 

The following summarizes the compensation and benefits received by the non-employee Directors of CryoLife as of December 31, 2016. It is
intended to be a summary of compensation arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights to any non-employee Director. 
 Annual
Retainer and Committee Chair Fees 
 Each of the non-employee Directors of the Board of Directors of CryoLife (the “Board”)
receives an annual cash retainer of $40,000. Each committee chair also receives a fee in addition to the annual cash retainer in the amounts shown in the following table. 
  

					
	 Annual Fees For Committee Chairs
	 
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	15,000	  
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	10,000	  
	 Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	7,500	  
	 Compliance Committee
	  	$	7,500	  

 The Presiding Director also receives $25,000 retainer paid in cash. Currently, the Presiding Director is also
the Chairman of the Corporate Governance Committee, and he does not receive any additional compensation for his position as Chairman of that committee. CryoLife pays all cash retainers on a monthly basis. 

Each committee member, other than the Presiding Director, also receives a fee, in addition to the annual cash retainer, in the amounts shown
in the following table. 
  

					
	 Annual Fees For Committee Members
	 
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	7,500	  
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	5,000	  
	 Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	3,750	  
	 Compliance Committee
	  	$	3,750	  

 Restricted Stock Grants 

Non-employee Directors of CryoLife are eligible for equity grants, which are generally made in May of each year. The annual equity portion of
non-employee Director compensation for fiscal 2016 was paid in the form of a grant of 8,734 shares of restricted stock. These shares were issued following the annual meeting of stockholders and vest on the first anniversary of issuance or
May 15 following the year of grant, whichever date is earlier. The size and terms of the annual equity grant are subject to annual reevaluation by the Compensation Committee. If a Director ceases to serve as a Director as a result of death or
disability the equity grant will become fully vested on the date the Director ceases to be a member of the Board. If the Director ceases to be a member of the Board for any other reason, and their equity grant has not fully vested as of the date of
termination of Board service, the equity grant shall automatically be forfeited and cancelled as of the date of such termination of Board service. The Compensation Committee, however, has discretion under CryoLife’s Equity and Cash Incentive
Plan to cause the equity grant to fully vest for certain conditions.