alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10757

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GRADY LEE WIKE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(1:94-CV-150-C)

 

February 22, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Grady Lee Wike, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in

which he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel

at sentencing. We affirm.

Wike pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute

100 grams or more of methamphetamine, and was sentenced to a term

of 120 months in prison to be followed by four years of supervised

release. In seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Wike alleges
2

that his trial counsel failed to require the Government to prove at

sentencing that Wike was in possession of d-methamphetamine rather

than l-methamphetamine. Wike contends that this failure prejudiced

him at sentencing, since he would have been sentenced under a lower

guideline range if the methamphetamine involved was type l.

Even assuming that Wike's counsel performed deficiently in

failing to address the distinction between d- and l-methamphetamine

at his sentencing, we conclude that Wike was not prejudiced because

Wike has not alleged that he did in fact possess l-methamphetamine.

See United States v. Dickey, No. 94-10984, slip op. 6 (5th Cir.

June 15, 1995) (finding no prejudice in absence of allegation that

methamphetamine involved actually was type l); United States v.

Devine, No. 95-50183, slip op. 3 (5th Cir. Aug. 30, 1995) (same).

Though a remand may sometimes be appropriate to allow a defendant

to present specific evidence of prejudice to support a conclusory

allegation that the methamphetamine involved was type l rather than

type d, see United States v. Acklen, 47 F.3d 739, 743-44 (5th Cir.

1995), the absence of any such allegation here renders a remand

inappropriate, particularly given the facts of this case. Indeed,

the record evidence indicates that the methamphetamine involved in

Wike's offense was type d, since the arresting agents testified

that Wike exhibited signs of physiological impairment at the time

of his arrest, which is characteristic of d-methamphetamine rather

than l-methamphetamine, and Wike admitted ingesting the drug

earlier in the day.
3

Wike also contends that the district court committed plain

error in sentencing him under the harsher guidelines without proof

that the methamphetamine involved was type d rather than type l.

We agree with the lower courts that this sentencing claim is not

cognizable in a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Seyfert, 67

F.3d 544, 546 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                       LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

          COMPUTATION OF DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES

                  AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES
                         (in thousands, except ratios)
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                             --------------------------------
                                                               2000        1999        1998
                                                             --------    --------    --------
<S>                                                          <C>         <C>         <C>
Earnings:
  Loss before income taxes, equity in net loss of
     affiliates, minority interest and Globalstar related
     impairment charges....................................  $(56,843)   $(62,138)   $(25,628)
  Plus fixed charges:
     Interest expense......................................   187,918     173,612     111,334
     Interest component of rent expense(1).................    15,665       9,953       6,600
  Less capitalized interest................................    17,082      84,315      60,125
                                                             --------    --------    --------
Earnings available to cover fixed charges..................  $129,658    $ 37,112    $ 32,181
                                                             ========    ========    ========
Fixed charges(2)...........................................  $282,253    $229,044    $172,619
                                                             ========    ========    ========
Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges..............  $152,595    $191,932    $140,438
                                                             ========    ========    ========
</TABLE>

---------------
(1) The interest component of rent expense is deemed to be approximately 25% of
    total rent expense.

(2) Fixed charges include preferred dividends as adjusted for the Company's
    effective tax rate. The effective tax rate for 1999 excludes the effect of a
    $34 million tax benefit affecting the utilization of Loral CyberStar's
    pre-acquisition loss carryforwards.
#### Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Logan, et al.

(Decided April 19, 1918.)

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.

Appeal and Error — Law of the Case. — The opinion of the Court of Appeals upon the first appeal of a case is the law of the case in subsequent trials.

TEAMAN *&*YEAMAN and J. *P.*HOBSON & SON for appellant.

M. M. LOGAN, Attorney General, and JOHN C. DUFFY, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Miller

Affirming.

This is the second appeal of this case. For the opinion on the former appeal see Bosworth, Auditor v. Evans*217ville *&*Bowling Green Packet Co., 178 Ky'. 716; also 179 Ky. 710, for the response overruling the petition for a rehearing. The action seeks to enjoin the collection of a franchise tax.

On the return of the case to the circuit court the demurrer to the petition was sustained in accordance with the mandate of this court. The plaintiff filed an amended petition substituting the present members of the board of valuation and assessment for the original defendants whose terms of office had expired. The new board demurred to the petition as amended; and, the circuit court having sustained the demurrer to the petition as amended aud the plaintiff having declined to further plead, the petition was dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed.

The amended petition sets out the federal questions raised somewhat more fully than they were stated in the original petition; but the essential facts are the same now as they were upon the former appeal. The question there presented was whether a steamboat company engaged in interstate commerce as well as in intrastate commerce, and owning tangible property located within the state of Kentucky, was liable to a franchise tax under the laws of this state. This court held that it was so liable, and no new defense is suggested upon this appeal.

The judgment upon the former appeal being the law of the case, it follows that the judgment of the circuit court must be and it is affirmed.
07

- 11

- 0252

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

JULY 26 , 2011

______________________________

MICHAEL WAYNE PARRISH, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 181 ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 21,891

- B; HONORABLE JOHN B. BOARD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE, J

., and BOYD, S.J. 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant, Michael Wayne Parrish, was convicted of

assault on a public servant 2 and sentenced to four years confinement. The Trial Court's

Certification of Defendant's Right to Appeal indicates that Appellant's case was a plea

bargain case with no right of appeal and that Appella nt waived his right of appeal.

1 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov't Code

Ann. § 75.002(a)(1) (West 2005).

2 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(1) (West 2011).2

By letter dated June 30, 2011 , this Court notified Appellant 's appointed counsel

of the consequences of the certification and invited him to either file an amended

certification showing a right of appeal or demonstrate other grounds for continuing the

appeal on or before July 15, 201 1

. Counsel was also notified that failure to do so might

result in dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 25.2 of the Texa s Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Counsel did not respond to this Court' s notice.

Because neither an amended certification reflecting a right of appeal was filed

nor good cause for continuing the appeal provided , this appeal is dismissed based on

the certification signed by the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

Patrick A. Pirtle

Justice

Do not publish.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

– 7528 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

– NM

– 004

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 2 $ 170.00 

### $390 $ 560.00 

### 166 $ 92,960.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 92,960 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@ $85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Anal **ysis** ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant r egulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Exp lanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Exhibit 10.27
 [DEFERRED SETTLEMENT]
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
UNDER THE
LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS INC.
2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
       Grant of Restricted Stock Units. 40,000




---



##### 



Vesting.
 Settlement of Restricted Stock Units.
 provided however
 provided however provided however
 Dividends and Dividend Equivalents.
  2




---



##### 



Rights of Stockholder.
 No Right to Continued Employment.
 Transferability.
 Tax Withholding.
 Notice.
 Arbitration.
  3




---



##### 



Governing Law.
 Employment Agreement Superseded.
 Signature in Counterparts.
   4




---



##### 



LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS INC.By:
    /s/ Avi KatzName:
    Avi KatzTitle:
    Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
Secretary/s/ Michael B. TargoffGrantee:  Michael B. Targoff  Phone Number of Grantee:Email Address of Grantee:
   5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Romero Thomas,

Plaintiff,

v.

Kimberly F. Miles, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 14-13107

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [30]

This matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation [30]. Proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging malicious prosecution in violation of both the United

States Constitution and state law and a Brady violation. The Magistrate Judge

recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Plaintiff did not file any

objections. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s report and agrees

with her recommendation.

 Accordingly, being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and

the pleadings, including the Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto, the

Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation. Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failing to state a claim upon which

2:14-cv-13107-NGE-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 112
relief can be granted. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s state law claims and DISMISSES them WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: April 24, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on April 24, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-13107-NGE-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 113
§ 260.73 How do existing welfare reform waivers affect the participation rates and work rules? ( a ) If a State is implementing a work participation component under a waiver, in accordance with this subpart, the provisions of section 407 of the Act will not apply in determining if a penalty should be imposed, to the extent that the provision is inconsistent with the waiver.
( b ) For the purpose of determining if the State's demonstration has a work participation component, the waiver list for the demonstration must include one or more specific provisions that directly correspond to the work policies in section 407 of the Act (i.e., change allowable JOBS activities, exemptions from JOBS participation, hours of required JOBS participation, or sanctions for noncompliance with JOBS participation).
( c ) Corresponding to the inconsistencies certified by the Governor under § 260.75: ( 1 ) We will calculate the State's work participation rates, by: ( i ) Excluding cases exempted from participation under the demonstration component and, if applicable, experimental and control cases not otherwise exempted, in calculating the rate;
( ii ) Defining work activities as defined in the demonstration component in determining the numerator; and
( iii ) Including cases meeting the required number of hours of participation in work activities in accordance with demonstration component policy, in determining the numerator.
( 2 ) We will determine whether a State is taking appropriate sanctions when an individual refuses to work based on the State's certified waiver policies.
( d ) We will use the data submitted by States pursuant to § 265.3 of this chapter to calculate and make public a State's work participation rates under both the TANF requirements and the State's alternative waiver requirements.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research Committee.                    

*Date:*                         January 30—February 1, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Westin St. Francis, 335 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Katrin Eichelberg, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-0818,                         *keichelberg@niaid.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
      ( print page 2291)    
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 10, 2007.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-172 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Federal Register: March 31, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 62)]
[Notices]               
[Page 17839-17840]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31mr11-35]                         

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday April 22, 2011.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

[[Page 17840]]

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-7704 Filed 3-29-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
§ 13.601 General. ( a ) When all tankerman endorsements are issued, renewed, or otherwise modified, the Coast Guard will determine, upon request, whether the applicant meets the requirements for an STCW tankerman endorsement for service on seagoing vessels. If the applicant is qualified, the Coast Guard will issue the appropriate endorsement. An applicant for any STCW endorsement must hold the appropriate national endorsement unless otherwise specified.
( b ) Applicants for an STCW tankerman endorsement must— ( 1 ) Meet the training and service requirements for the endorsement sought; and
( 2 ) Meet the appropriate standard of competence identified in the STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see § 13.103 of this part).
( c ) The Coast Guard will accept the following as proof of meeting the standards of competence: ( 1 ) In-service experience: Documentation of successful completion of assessments, approved or accepted by the Coast Guard, and signed by a qualified assessor, deck or engineering, as appropriate.
( 2 ) Training ship experience: Documentation of successful completion of an approved training program involving formal training and assessment onboard a school ship.
( 3 ) Simulator training: Documentation of successful completion of training and assessment from a Coast Guard-approved course involving maritime simulation.
( 4 ) Training program: Documentation of successful completion of an approved training program involving formal training and assessments.
( d ) The Coast Guard will publish guidelines that should be used to document successful demonstrations of competence. Organizations may develop alternative assessment documentation for demonstrations of competence ; however, such documentation must be approved by the Coast Guard prior to its use and submittal with an application.
§ 13.301 Original application for tankerman-PIC (barge) endorsement. Each applicant for a tankerman-PIC (barge) endorsement must— ( a ) Be at least 18 years old;
( b ) Apply on a form provided by the Coast Guard;
( c ) Present evidence of— ( 1 ) Passing a physical and medical examination according to § 13.125 of this part;
( 2 ) Service on tank vessels in accordance with § 13.303 of this subpart;
( 3 ) Completion of an approved Tank Barge: Firefighting course providing training in the subjects identified in Table 3 to § 13.121(e) completed within 5 years of the date of application for the endorsement, unless he or she has previously submitted such a certificate for a license, tankerman endorsement, or officer endorsement on an MMC; and
( 4 ) Completion of an approved Tank Barge: Dangerous Liquids or Tank Barge: Liquefied Gases course appropriate for the endorsement applied for within the previous 5 years. A course certificate used for original issuance or renewal of an endorsement cannot be used for a subsequent renewal of the same endorsement; and
( d ) Be capable of speaking, and understanding, in English, all instructions needed to commence, conduct, and complete a transfer of cargo, and be capable of reading and understanding the English language found in the Declaration of Inspection, vessel response plans, and Material Safety Data Sheet.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77995, Dec. 24, 2013, as amended by USCG-2021-0348, 87 FR 3223, Jan. 21, 2022]