alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7169

CHARLES MICHAEL MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusCHIEF AUSTIN; PAUL MEAD, and all other concerned parties of the Columbia City Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-99-1620-0-23BD) Submitted: February 6, 2001 Decided: February 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Michael Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Gordon Cooper, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Appellees are Charles Austin, Chief of Police for the City of Columbia, South Carolina, and Paul Mead, an investigator with the Columbia City Police Department. 2 PER CURIAM: Charles Michael Mitchell appeals the district court’s orderdenying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion agreeing with the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment to the Appellees * and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v. Austin , No. CA-99-1620-0-23BD (D.S.C. Aug. 2, 2000). 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*James C. Johnson, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 19, 1969.

*Per Curiam.*

The rehabilitative purpose of the Narcotic Addiction Control Act, which the Court of Appeals found in *People*v. *Fuller*(24 N Y 2d 292) to be distinguishable from the traditional purposes of criminal punishment, applies whoever the addict may be. Our holding in *People*v. *Soto*(64 Misc 2d 515) that, unless and until the Youthful Offender Law is amended, the Criminal Court of the City of New York is deprived of power to impose any sentence of imprisonment on youthful offenders, obviously has no application in a case where an adjudicated youthful offender is found to be an addict. A certification to the care and custody of the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission is not a sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, the Criminal Court of the City of New *438York has jurisdiction pursuant to section 209 of the Mental Hygiene Law to certify to the commission an adjudicated youthful offender found to be an addict.

We have examined all the points raised by the defendant and find error only in the failure to accord the defendant a jury trial on the addiction hearing. That was a violation of his right to equal protection of the law. The judgment should therefore be reversed and the case remitted to the court below with direction that the addiction hearing be transferred to the Supreme Court, New York County, for trial with a jury *(People*v. *Fuller, supra).*

The judgment should be reversed on the law and the case remitted to the 'Criminal 'Court of the City of New York, County of New York, for further proceedings in accordance with the foregoing memorandum.

Concur — Streit, J. P., Gold and Hofstadter, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.
§ 80.1121 Receipt and acknowledgement of distress alerts by ship stations and ship earth stations. ( a ) Ship or ship earth stations that receive a distress alert must, as soon as possible, inform the master or person responsible for the ship of the contents of the distress alert.
( b ) For VHF and MF, ships in receipt of a distress alert shall not transmit a distress alert relay, but should listen on the distress traffic channel for 5 minutes and, if appropriate, acknowledge the alert by radiotelephony to the ship in distress and inform the coast station and/or Rescue Coordination Center. Distress alert relays to “all ships” on these bands may only be sent by a ship who has knowledge that another ship in distress is not itself able to transmit the distress alert, and the Master of the ship considers that further help is necessary.
( c ) For HF, ships in receipt of a distress alert shall listen on the distress traffic channel for 5 minutes. If no distress communications are heard and if the call is not acknowledged by a coast station, the ship shall transmit a distress relay on HF to the coast radio station and inform the Rescue Coordination Center. Distress alert relays to “all Ships” on HF may only be sent by a ship who has knowledge that another ship in distress is not itself able to transmit the distress alert, and the Master of the ship considers that further help is necessary.
( d ) In cases where distress alert continues to be received from the same source, the ship may, after consultation with the Rescue Coordination Center, transmit a DSC acknowledgment to terminate the call.
( e ) A ship station in receipt of a shore-to-ship distress alert relay (see § 80.1113(e)) should establish communication as directed and render such assistance as required and appropriate.
[57 FR 9065, Mar. 16, 1992, as amended at 68 FR 46980, Aug. 7, 2003]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Nancy E. QUEEN, Appellant.

No. 03-2796.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 2004.

Decided March 25, 2004.

*198Charles E. Ambrose, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nancy E. Queen, Olathe, KS, pro se.

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Nancy Queen pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute pseudoephed-rine, having reasonable cause to believe it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(c)(2) and 846. The district court1 departed downward from the Guidelines and sentenced Queen to time served and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, Queen’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In lengthy pro se submissions, Queen contends she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her indictment would have been dismissed outright under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers if her counsel had so moved. Queen seeks to supplement the record with exhibits in which she reiterates her ineffective-assistance claim. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on an appeal waiver in the plea agreement.

We find that Queen’s appeal should not be dismissed based on the appeal waiver, because the waiver in the plea agreement specifically permits Queen to challenge her conviction on ineffective-assistance grounds. To the extent Ms. Queen challenges her conviction on grounds other than ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that those arguments are waived by the plea agreement. *Cf. United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (appellate court may dismiss appeal if it falls within scope of appeal waiver), ce*rt. denied,*— U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003). We decline to address Queen’s ineffective-assistance claim, which should be raised — if at all — in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See United States v. Hughes,*330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir.2003) (ineffective-assistance claims should be deferred to § 2255 proceedings unless miscarriage of justice would obviously result, or outcome would be inconsistent with substantial justice); *United States v. Cain,*134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998) (claim that ineffective assistance of counsel’ tainted defendant’s guilty plea should be raised in § 2255 motion and not on direct appeal); *cf. United States v. Pregent,*190 F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir.1999) (prisoner on supervised release is “in custody” for purposes of filing § 2255 motion).

We have carefully reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. We deny all other pending motions, including the petition for a writ of mandamus.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5187 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5187

   To amend section 7(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
  eliminate the partial overtime exemption for employees that perform 
 services necessary and incidental to the sale and processing of green 
                        and cigar leaf tobacco.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 1994

  Mr. KILDEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend section 7(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
  eliminate the partial overtime exemption for employees that perform 
 services necessary and incidental to the sale and processing of green 
                        and cigar leaf tobacco.

    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 ``Tobacco Workers Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) there are no reasons why employees engaged in the 
        handling and processing of green leaf and cigar leaf tobacco 
        should be excluded from the full protections of the overtime 
        provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; and
            (2) the special retention of the partial overtime exemption 
        for employees that perform services necessary and incidental to 
        the sale and processing of green and cigar leaf tobacco can no 
        longer be justified by reasons of public policy or any other 
        consideration.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT.

    Section 7(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (2 U.S.C. 
207(m)) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10 (iii) (F) (b)


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
March 15, 2007





Mr. John C. Millman, President

Sterling Bancorp

650 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10019


Dear Mr. Millman:


This will confirm the following amendment to your Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement, dated as of March 22, 2002, with our Company, which was
last amended by letter agreement dated March 15, 2006:


          The date
in
the third line of Paragraph 1 (captioned “Term”)

                    is
amended to December 31, 2009.


The foregoing amendment was adopted by the Compensation Committee and
approved by the Board of Directors at its March 15, 2007 meeting.


Kindly sign and return the enclosed copy to the Company in order to
confirm your understanding and acceptance of the foregoing amendment.




	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
Sincerely,


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
Sterling Bancorp


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
By: 

	
 /s/ Dale C.
  Fredston


	
 

	
 

	
 

	



	
 

	
 

	
 

	
Secretary







	
	
 


	
Agreed:

	
 


	
 

	
 


	
/s/ John C. Millman

	
 


	


	
 


	
John C. Millman 

	
 





PAGE 91
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 24.1

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

        Each person whose signature appears below hereby constitutes and
appoints Stanley Goldberg and Mark G. Eisenschenk and each of them, his true
and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and
re-substitution for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Ringer Corporation (the "Company") Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 1996 (the "1996 Form 10-KSB")
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any and all
amendments thereto, and to file such 1996 Form 10-KSB and any and all such
amendments, with all exhibits thereto, and all other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, state securities
administrations and any and all other agencies or administrations as may be
deemed necessary or advisable by said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of
them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite or necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or either of them, or
their or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been signed on the 14th
day of November 1996, by the following persons:


/s/  Gordon F. Stofer                   /s/  Robert W. Fischer
---------------------------             ----------------------------
     Gordon F. Stofer                        Robert W. Fischer



/s/  Stanley Goldberg                   /s/  Donald E. Lovness
---------------------------             ----------------------------
     Stanley Goldberg                        Donald E. Lovness



/s/  John R. Hetterick                  /s/  Franklin Pass
---------------------------             ----------------------------
     John R. Hetterick                       Franklin Pass


/s/  Frederick F. Yanni, Jr.
---------------------------
     Frederick F. Yanni, Jr.





                                      F-17
QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F7

Date: 9/0112007

Revision

Record of Contacts

DMS Docket No. FAA-~201ll-_0~3_7~6 _

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organiiation Person Contacted Dat~,

ATA Jim (Joe) White 12/3/2009

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master lisl to Verify That This is the Correct Revision Before Use
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District 

43301 Division St., Suite 206 

Lancaster, CA 93535-4649 

661.723.8070 

Fax 661.723.3450 

Eldon Heaston, Executive Director 

September 23, 2013 

Patrick Au 

State of California 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Resources Board 

P. 0. Box 2815 

Sacramento, California 95812 

Project Title: Rescission of AV AQMD Rule 1110 - Emission From Stationary Internal 

Combustion Engines (Demonstration) 

Dear Mr. Au: 

The Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) requests that the California 

Air Resources Board submit rescinded Rule 1110 - Emission From Stationary Internal 

Combustion Engines (Demonstration), to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for 

removal from the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The AV AQMD has rescinded Rule 1110 to 

remove a rule that is inapplicable due to the termination of the program prior to the formation of 

the AV AQMD and the fact that none of the program engines were located within what is now 

the jurisdiction of the AVAQMD. 

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (661) 723-8070, 

extension 2, or Barbara Lods at extension 3. Please note that all documents required for a 

complete submission were sent electronically on September 23 , 2013 . 

Bret Banks 

Operations Manager 

BSB/bl CARB SIP Submittal Request AV Rule 1110 

Clean 

Cities 

Antelope Valley
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FORM  THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (100)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (100)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### § 217.121 Effective dates.

Regulations in this subpart are effective from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2026.
**EXHIBIT 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED****PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We have issued our report dated June 6, 2005, accompanyingthe consolidated financial statements and schedule, andmanagement’s assessment of internal control over financialreporting. Both reports are included in the annual report ofStellent, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the yearended March 31, 2005. We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said reports in the RegistrationStatements of Stellent, Inc. and subsidiaries on Forms S-8(File No. 333-11489, No. 333-66449,No. 333-66451, No. 333-90843, No. 333-47228,No. 333-47216, No. 333-47214, No. 333-47212,No. 333-69080, No. 333-75828, No. 333-102130,No. 333-116148, No. 333-116000 andNo. 333-118544) and Form S-3 (No. 333-66094).     /s/ Grant Thornton LLP    Minneapolis, MinnesotaJune 6, 2005
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0934Advancing Public Safety Through Community Policing: The First 25 Years of the COPS OfficeThis report highlights 25 significant initiatives the COPS Office has contributed to the field in its first 25 years of serving the field. Supporting law enforcement is our mission; we are proud of the ways we have done that and excited about continuing, with the support of our law enforcement stakeholders and Congress, to play a critical role for law enforcement in the years ahead.By Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office)Categories: Foundations of Community PolicingLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0934Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Jan 2021Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 02:00 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
<PAGE> 25
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                   EXHIBIT 11
       STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE - (UNAUDITED)

                                               For the Three Months Ended
                                                       December 31,
                                             -------------------------------
(dollars in thousands except per                 2003             2002
               share amounts)
----------------------------------------     --------------   --------------
<S>                                            <C>               <C>
Net earnings                                   $    (680)        $     704
Effect of conversion of preferred                    101               100
securities
Diluted earnings per share                          (579)              804
Weighted average common shares
outstanding                                    3,012,434         3,012,434
Effect of conversion of preferred
securities (1)                                 1,371,429         1,371,429
Common stock equivalents due to
dilutive effect of stock options (1)              39,601            24,254

Total weighted average common shares
and common share equivalents
outstanding (1)                                4,423,464         4,408,117
Basic earnings (loss) per common share            $(0.23)            $0.23
Diluted earnings (loss) per common
share                                             $(0.23)            $0.18
(1) Effect of conversion of preferred securities and dilutive effect of stock
options are not considered in the calculation of earnings per share because the
impact is antidilutive.
</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 97
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 97 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 97.121 Restricted operation. ( a ) If the operation of an amateur station causes general interference to the reception of transmissions from stations operating in the domestic broadcast service when receivers of good engineering design, including adequate selectivity characteristics, are used to receive such transmissions, and this fact is made known to the amateur station licensee, the amateur station shall not be operated during the hours from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., local time, and on Sunday for the additional period from 10:30 a.m. until 1 p.m., local time, upon the frequency or frequencies used when the interference is created.
( b ) In general, such steps as may be necessary to minimize interference to stations operating in other services may be required after investigation by the FCC.