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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1405

HENRY PENN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF FAIRFAX,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-01449-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Penn, Appellant Pro Se. James Edward Wilcox, Jr., Fairfax,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Henry Penn appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of his former employer on his claims

brought under the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 12101-12213 (2000), and the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29

U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2000). We review de novo a district court’s

order granting summary judgment and view the facts in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bacon v. City of Richmond,

475 F.3d 633, 637 (4th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate

when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence

presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48

(1986). 

With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Penn v. County of Fairfax,

No. 1:06-cv-01449-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 1, 2008 & entered

Feb. 5, 2008). 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
#### John Burdick, *Respondent, v.*Ira Phillips, *Appellant.*

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment ordered for defendant in the Oneida County Court. Opinion by

Hardin, J.
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.202 Filed 06/30/03 Page 1 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.203 Filed 06/30/03 Page 2 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.204 Filed 06/30/03 Page 3 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.205 Filed 06/30/03 Page 4 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.206 Filed 06/30/03 Page 5 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.207 Filed 06/30/03 Page 6 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.208 Filed 06/30/03 Page 7 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.209 Filed 06/30/03 Page 8 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.210 Filed 06/30/03 Page 9 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.211 Filed 06/30/03 Page 10 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.212 Filed 06/30/03 Page 11 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.213 Filed 06/30/03 Page 12 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.214 Filed 06/30/03 Page 13 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.215 Filed 06/30/03 Page 14 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.216 Filed 06/30/03 Page 15 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.217 Filed 06/30/03 Page 16 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.218 Filed 06/30/03 Page 17 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.219 Filed 06/30/03 Page 18 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.220 Filed 06/30/03 Page 19 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.221 Filed 06/30/03 Page 20 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.222 Filed 06/30/03 Page 21 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.223 Filed 06/30/03 Page 22 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.224 Filed 06/30/03 Page 23 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.225 Filed 06/30/03 Page 24 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.226 Filed 06/30/03 Page 25 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.227 Filed 06/30/03 Page 26 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.228 Filed 06/30/03 Page 27 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.229 Filed 06/30/03 Page 28 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.230 Filed 06/30/03 Page 29 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.231 Filed 06/30/03 Page 30 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.232 Filed 06/30/03 Page 31 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.233 Filed 06/30/03 Page 32 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.234 Filed 06/30/03 Page 33 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.235 Filed 06/30/03 Page 34 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.236 Filed 06/30/03 Page 35 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.237 Filed 06/30/03 Page 36 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.238 Filed 06/30/03 Page 37 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.239 Filed 06/30/03 Page 38 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.240 Filed 06/30/03 Page 39 of 40
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 35, PageID.241 Filed 06/30/03 Page 40 of 40
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                    906 OF THE SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of Atrion
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that
the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: August 14, 2002                  /s/ Jeffery Strickland
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jeffery Strickland
                                        Chief Financial Officer

      The foregoing certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350 and not for any other purpose.
§ 76.30-10 Location and spacing of tubing. ( a ) The tubing must be located on the overhead or within 12 inches of the overhead on the bulkheads. Where liable to physical damage, the tubing must be suitably protected.
( b ) In each enclosed space or separate room there must be exposed at least 5 percent of the total length of tubing in that circuit, but in no case may the amount be less than 25 feet.
( c ) No spot on the overhead of a protected space may be more than 12 feet from the nearest point of tubing. Where beams or girders extend below the ceiling, or where the ceiling is installed at more than one level, the tubing must be located so as to be most effective.
[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48258, July 22, 2016]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 10
Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas City

## Filings received during the week ending August 8, 2009

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1719

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to limit farm program payments

to producers who earn less than $100,000 annually from off-farm sources.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1995

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to limit farm

program payments to producers who earn less than

$100,000 annually from off-farm sources.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCOME LIMITATIONS ON RECEIPT OF FARM

4 PROGRAM PAYMENTS.

5 (a) INCOME LIMITATIONS ON RECEIPT OF PAY6 MENTS.—Section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985

7 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing new paragraph:

9 ‘‘(8) ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME LIMITATION.—(A) A

10 person who has an adjusted gross income of $100,000 or
2

•HR 1719 IH

1 more from off-farm sources annually shall not be eligible

2 to receive deficiency payments and land diversion pay3 ments described in paragraph (1) or other payments de4 scribed in paragraph (2)(B).

5 ‘‘(B) For purposes of this paragraph:

6 ‘‘(i) The term ‘adjusted gross income’ has the

7 meaning given that term in section 62 of the Inter8 nal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 62).

9 ‘‘(ii) The term ‘off-farm sources’ means sources

10 of income for a person unrelated to the production

11 and sale of a agricultural commodity by the person.

12 Such term shall not include interest or dividend in13 come resulting from savings derived from revenues

14 from the production and sale of a agricultural com15 modity.’’.

16 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub17 section (a) shall apply to crop years beginning after the

18 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 143

To require preemployment drug testing with respect to applicants for Federal

employment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To require preemployment drug testing with respect to

applicants for Federal employment.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Employment

5 Applicant Drug Testing Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PREEMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—All applicants for employment

8 with the Federal Government shall be subject to

9 preemployment drug testing in accordance with require10 ments which shall be prescribed by—
2

•HR 143 IH

1 (1) the President, with respect to applicants for

2 employment within the executive branch;

3 (2) the Administrative Office of the United

4 States Courts, with respect to applicants for employ5 ment within the judicial branch; and

6 (3)(A) each House of Congress, with respect to

7 applicants for employment within such House; or

8 (B) the appointing authority, with respect to

9 applicants for employment in any other office or

10 agency within the legislative branch.

11 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this Act, the term

12 ‘‘drug’’ means a controlled substance, as defined by sec13 tion 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.

14 802(6)).

15 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

16 Any rules or regulations necessary to carry out this

17 Act shall be issued in time so that they may be imple18 mented beginning not later than the 90th day after the

19 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 99.21****CONSENT OF EXPERT**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Cameco Corporation (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name under the heading “The NuclearBusiness — Reserves and Resources” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, dated March 30, 2007 (the “AIF”), under the heading “Qualified Persons” inManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the yearended December 31, 2006 (the “MD&A”) and in the 40-F, and to disclosure of a scientific andtechnical nature pursuant to which I have acted in a supervisory capacity under the heading “TheNuclear Business — Reserves and Resources” of the AIF and under the heading “Qualified Persons” inthe MD&A.Sincerely,*/s/ Steve Magnuson*
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
FirstCity Financial Corporation: We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Numbers 333-10345,
333-48671, 333-59333, 333-00623 and 33-09485) on Forms S-3 and S-8 of FirstCity Financial
Corporation, of our report dated March 16, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
FirstCity Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive income (loss), and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, which report
appears in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of FirstCity Financial Corporation. Our
report refers to a change in the presentation of preferred stock in 2003 and a change in the
classification of gains associated with the early extinguishment of debt in 2002. KPMG LLP Dallas, Texas
March 16, 2005
#### Office of Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Blackwell.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Blackwell*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1223.]

(No. 96-2789

Submitted and decided December 17, 1998.)

On Application for Reinstatement.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent Joseph Henry Blackwell, Attorney Registration No. 0001563, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio.

The court coming now to consider its order of September 24,1997, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a -period of two years with the second year to be stayed, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that Joseph Henry Blackwell be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

For earlier case, see *Disciplinary Counsel v. Blackwell*(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 395, 683 N.E.2d 1074.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 30, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC WILLIAM BLY,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-6019

(D.C. No. 5:96-CR-00108-C-2)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

A district court generally has no authority to modify a term of

imprisonment after it has been imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). But this general

rule isn’t without exceptions. Relevant for our purposes here, a district court may

reduce a term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was based on a

sentencing range later lowered by an amendment to the guidelines and the

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res

judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
reduction is otherwise consistent with the guidelines’ policy statements. See id.

§ 3582(c)(2); United States v. McGee, 615 F.3d 1287, 1292 (10th Cir. 2010). 

Eric Bly argues that he is entitled to relief under this standard. But the

district court disagreed and so must we, if for a slightly different reason. Mr. Bly

bases his eligibility for a sentencing reduction on Amendment 599 to the

sentencing guidelines issued by the United States Sentencing Commission. See

U.S.S.G. app. C, vol. II, amend. 599, at 69. By its terms, however, Amendment

599 purports to amend only § 2K2.4 of the sentencing guidelines and that

provision, in turn, applies only to convictions arising under 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(h),

924(c), or 929(a). See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4. The problem for Mr. Bly is that he was

not convicted of any offense under those provisions and so is not eligible for any

relief Amendment 599 might have to offer. 

Mr. Bly is right to point out that § 2K2.4 addresses certain firearms

offenses and he himself does have a firearm conviction under § 922(g)(1). But by

its terms § 2K2.4 does not apply to all firearm offenses, only those arising under

§§ 844(h), 924(c), or 929(a). Because § 2K2.4 doesn’t apply to his convictions,

neither can Amendment 599, and Mr. Bly is ineligible for relief. See United

States v. Friend, 303 F.3d 921, 922 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding “Amendment 599

applies only to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) . . . convictions, and not to § 922(g)

convictions”); United States v. Abreu, 33 F. App’x 399, 401 (10th Cir. 2002)

- 2 -
(unpublished) (holding Amendment 599 inapplicable because defendant’s three

convictions did not implicate 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(h), 924(c), or 929(a)).

We grant Mr. Bly’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the

judgment of the district court.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 3 -
§ 78.47-35 Fire doors. ( a ) All doors in main vertical zone bulkheads or stairway enclosures, except from individual rooms such as staterooms, fan rooms, lockers, etc., shall be numbered conspicuously on an etched plate or equivalent in not less than 3 ⁄ 8 inch letters and figures “F. S. D. 1,” “2,” “3,” etc. If stenciled or similar notice is used, the letters and figures shall be at least 1 inch high. The number shall be conspicuous with the door in the open position.
( b ) [Reserved]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending August 14, 2010

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending June 26, 2010

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
###### Editorial Note on Part 98

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 98 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49232, Sept. 25, 2009.

#### § 98.30-10 Smoking.

No person may smoke within 50 feet of a portable tank or IBC on the deck on which the tank is stowed.

[CGD 73-172, 39 FR 22954, June 25, 1974. Redesignated and amended by USCG-2011-0088, 78 FR 54785, 54787, Sept. 6, 2013]
§ 76.05-25 Hand portable fire extinguishers and semiportable fire extinguishing systems. ( a ) Approved hand portable fire extinguishers and semiportable fire extinguishing systems shall be installed on all vessels as set forth in subpart 76.50.
( b ) [Reserved]