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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-5130

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM HARRIS TAFT, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-03-208)

Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alton L. Gwaltney, III, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; Michael E. Savage,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Taft filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of

appeal on December 15, 2004, which he asserts in his brief on

appeal that the district court granted. Our review of the district

court’s docket, however, reveals no entry for such an order.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Harris Taft, Jr., seeks to appeal his conviction

and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the

notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.

App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of

excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an

extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.

App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th

Cir. 1985).

The district court entered judgment on November 10, 2004;

the ten-day appeal period expired on November 24, 2004. Taft filed

the notice of appeal after the ten-day period expired but within

the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of

appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the

case to the district court for the court to determine whether Taft

has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension

of the ten-day appeal period.* The record, as supplemented, will

then be returned to this court for further consideration. We defer

action on the joint motion to remand for resentencing.

REMANDED
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.305 How does the return-to-duty process conclude? ( a ) As the employer, if you decide that you want to permit the employee to return to the performance of safety-sensitive functions, you must ensure that the employee takes a return-to-duty test. This test cannot occur until after the SAP has determined that the employee has successfully complied with prescribed education and/or treatment. The employee must have a negative drug test result and/or an alcohol test with an alcohol concentration of less than 0.02 before resuming performance of safety-sensitive duties.
( b ) As an employer, you must not return an employee to safety-sensitive duties until the employee meets the conditions of paragraph (a) of this section. However, you are not required to return an employee to safety-sensitive duties because the employee has met these conditions. That is a personnel decision that you have the discretion to make, subject to collective bargaining agreements or other legal requirements.
( c ) As a SAP or MRO, you must not make a “fitness for duty” determination as part of this re-evaluation unless required to do so under an applicable DOT agency regulation. It is the employer, rather than you, who must decide whether to put the employee back to work in a safety-sensitive position.
( d ) As the employer, if a SAP who is otherwise fully qualified under this subpart performed a remote evaluation of the employee outside the geographic jurisdiction for their credential(s), the employee who they evaluated will not be required to seek the evaluation of a second SAP. If you decide that you want to permit the employee to return to the performance of safety-sensitive functions, you will proceed with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 27650, May 2, 2023]
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Donald Lynn Collins, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Collins Industries, Inc., certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended October 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of 
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

|Dated: | January 15, 2003 |                               
|------ | ---------------- | ------------------------------
|       |                  |                               
|       | By               |                               
|       |                  | /s/ Donald Lynn Collins       
|       |                  | Donald Lynn Collins, President
|       |                  | and Chief Executive Officer
Route clearance patrols, the men out front
 By 1st Lt. Jessica Jackson , 223 Engineer Battalion
  U.S. Army Spc. Francis Cremone from Arlington, Mass., and Spc. Joaquin Valera from Boston, Mass., lead 1st Platoon, 182nd Engineer Company, 223rd Engineer Battalion, Task Force Knight, in a halt during their route around Forward Operating Base Sakari Kharez, April 18. Courtesy Photo
 KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan (April 30, 2012) — The first to encounter the threat of potential improvised explosive devices is one of the most dangerous jobs of a route clearance patrol soldier. Two soldiers in the 182nd Engineer Company exhibit extreme courage on a daily basis by operating the Husky Mounted Detection System. U.S. Army Spc. Francis Cremone of Arlington, Mass., and U.S. Army Spc. Joaquin Valera of Boston, are both Husky drivers and ground penetrating radar operators for the 1st Platoon, 182nd Engineer Company, 223rd Engineer Battalion. These driver operators are in front of the route clearance patrols while clearing roads outside of Forward Operating Base Sakari Kharez. The importance of their job is realized every day as local nationals and coalition forces are able to safely use the roads. While in front, the Husky drivers are the eyes of the platoon– making sure to catch the threat before it catches them.“Sometimes there is a lot of pressure,” said Valera. “When we get to the route, we look at the surroundings to see what has changed since the last time. If nothing has changed, it kind of takes the pressure off.”During their deployment, they have conducted hundreds of missions clearing thousands of kilometers of routes in southern Afghanistan. U.S. Army 1st Lt. Benjamin Salzberg, the platoon leader from New Gloucester, Mass., explains how his platoon’s job is vital to efforts in Afghanistan.“We clear routes to allow freedom of maneuver for resupply of the COBs [Combat Operating Base] and FOBs [Forward Operation Base] out at the more rural parts, which is very important,” Salzberg said. “And we clear in direct operations so the maneuver elements have freedom to complete their objective.” Huskies are usually the lead element when clearing routes by playing a critical part in conducting route clearance operations. This especially hazardous position provides the drivers with a sense of pride and accomplishment when they find IEDs before any equipment or personnel becomes damaged or injured.With the pride and accomplishment also comes the reality that they are all that is between the route clearance package and the enemy. “We’re looking for indicators; no matter how you slice it, when you’re in the lead. In the Husky your first thing is to look for indicators,” said Cremone.“I think they do an excellent job. We pick up a lot of hits, being able to distinguish between those and driving the Husky – it takes a lot. They do a great job!” said Salzberg.
----

**EXHIBIT      21.01**

| Name                of Subsidiary                       |   |  State                of Incorporation |                      | I.D.                Number |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------|
|                                                    |   |                                        |                      |                       |   |
| Atlantic                Hardware and Supply Corporation |   |                                        | New                York   |                       | 13-2687036 |
|                                                    |   |                                        |                      |                       |   |
| Wel-Com                Financial Services, Inc.         |   |                                        | Ohio                      |                       | 31-0484520 |
|                                                    |   |                                        |                      |                       |   |
| Universal                Supply Group, Inc.             |   |                                        | New                York   |                       | 11-3391045 |
|                                                    |   |                                        |                      |                       |   |
| Well-Bilt                Steel Products, Inc.           |   |                                        | New                Jersey |                       | 22-3408907 |
|                                                    |   |                                        |                      |                       |   |
| RAL                Supply Group, Inc.                   |   |                                        | New                York   |                       | 20-0207168 |
|                                                    |   |                                        |                      |                       |   |
| American/Universal                Supply Inc.           |   |                                        | New                York   |                       | 16-1661494 |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-KSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     1,759,954
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             12,789,043
<ALLOWANCES>                                 828,000
<INVENTORY>                                8,126,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          24,518,565
<PP&E>                                     1,912,957
<DEPRECIATION>                               410,929
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            29,578,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     16,892,980
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         76,154
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      76,649
<OTHER-SE>                                11,575,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              29,578,077
<SALES>                                   42,258,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          42,258,954
<CGS>                                     30,409,201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             30,409,201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             308,229
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           515,886
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            1,589,815
<INCOME-TAX>                                 682,778
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          907,037
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 907,037
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .29



</TABLE>
#### § 6.13 Delegations of authority.

The Secretary of Transportation delegates to the head of each operating administration of this Department the authority to take final action, other than rulemaking, on matters pertaining to the Act in actions that require section 554 proceedings. The head of each operating administration may redelegate this authority.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LEWIS LEE SETTLES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50087

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00564-ODW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 17, 2012 ** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Lewis Lee Settles appeals from the 180-month aggregate sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea convictions for drug and firearm crimes. Pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Settles’s counsel has filed a brief

FILED

JAN 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 Appellant’s December 30, 2011, motion requesting leave to file late 1

supplemental excerpts of record is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file

Settles’s supplemental excerpts of record received on December 14, 2011.

2 10-50087

stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel

of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.1
EPA

REGISTRATION

NO. 87659-1 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
11

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
12
13

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
14
15
16

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
17

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
18

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
19

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
20

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
21

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
22

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
23

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
24

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
25

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
26

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
27

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
28

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
29

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
30

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
 

______________________________________________________________ 

Page 73 is not included in this copy. 

Pages through are not included in this copy. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

The material not included contains the following type of 

information: 

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients. 

__ __ Identity of product impurities. 

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process. 

__ __ Description of quality control procedures. 

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients. 

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. 

_____ A draft product label. 

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula. 

_____ Information about a pending registration action. 

__ __ FIFRA registration data. 

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _ . 

_____ The document is not responsive to the request. 

__ __ Internal deliberative information. 

__ __ Privileged attorney-client communication. 

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the 

 Agency.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C I R . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-10591

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS ARTURO DAVID VALLEZ, JR., Defendant-Appellant. consolidated with

__________________________

No. 98-10619

__________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS ALFONZO GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(2:97-CR-041)
February 8, 1999 Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * After reviewing the record in this case and considering the briefs and argument of counsel, we agree with the district court that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop appellants Gomez and Vallez. We are also persuaded that the district court did not2

err in finding that appellants consented to the search. The judgment of conviction is therefore AFFIRMED.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 20

Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 2001

Mr. GOSS submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed

to

RESOLUTION

Designating majority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Member be, and

2 he is hereby, elected to the following standing committee

3 of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Goode.

Æ
#### §§ 655.22-655.30 [Reserved]
§ 41.110 New DOT owned buildings and additions to buildings. ( a ) DOT Operating Administrations responsible for the design and construction of new DOT Federally owned buildings will ensure that each building is designed and constructed in accord with the seismic design and construction standards set out in § 41.120 of this part.
( b ) This section pertains to all building projects for which development of detailed plans and specifications was initiated after January 5, 1990. It applies to additions to existing buildings as well as to new buildings. It applies worldwide.
( c ) For DOT Federally owned buildings, a certification of compliance with the seismic design and construction requirements of this part is required prior to the acceptance of the building. Such statements of compliance may include the engineer's and architect's authenticated verifications of seismic design codes, standards, and practices used in the design and construction of the building, construction observation reports, local or state building department plan review documents, or other documents deemed appropriate by the DOT Operating Administration.
Exhibit 23






                 (LETTERHEAD OF COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.)

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Coachmen Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-59251, No. 2-45373,
No. 2-47923, No. 2-56027 and No. 2-64572) and in the related Prospectus of
our reports dated January 26, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Coachmen Industries,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 1995, which reports are included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.





                                     COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
                                  ------------------------------
                                     COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



Elkhart, Indiana
March 25, 1996
Latinos Need Culturally Appropriate


Smoking Cessation Programs


By Jennifer Brooks


Closing the Gap, Hispanic Agenda for Action • October 1998


Latinos who smoke have different attitudes and beliefs than nonLatino Whites when it comes to smoking, according to a study by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) published in 

a recent issue of the agency’s newsletter, Research Activities. The study suggests 

public health media programs should encourage Latinos to quit smoking cigarettes based on those attitudes and beliefs. 

According to the study, Latinos most often quit smoking because of criticism from family members, concern about the children’s health, and a desire to 

set a good example for their children, while Whites were more often concerned 

about their own health and desire to achieve the difficult goal of quitting 

smoking. 

Therefore, according to Eliseo J. Perez-Stable, MD, “if the goal of public 

health media programs is to encourage Latinos to quit smoking cigarettes, they 

should emphasize quitting for the sake of the family’s health and decrease emphasis on quitting to improve personal health.” Dr. Perez-Stable is co-director of 

the AHCPR-supported MEDTEP Research Center for Diverse Populations at 

the University of California, San Francisco. 

The study also revealed that Latinos were more likely than Whites to 

believe tobacco is not addictive. Whites were more likely than Latinos to continue smoking to avoid gaining weight. 

Dr. Perez-Stable suggests physicians should focus on maintenance of the 

family’s health and personal appearance, as opposed to personal health, to increase Latino patients’ motivation to quit smoking. 

The AHCPR study involved a random survey of 312 Latino smokers and 

354 non-Latino Whites age 18-65 who resided in the San Francisco area. A 

detailed report of the findings, “Ethnic comparison of attitudes and beliefs 

about cigarette smoking,” by Dr. Perez-Stable, et al., can be found in the March 

1998 issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

Office of Minority Health Resource Center U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
1210-AB32-2-1524.html[7/26/2015 6:52:13 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwn-2tbd

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2021

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

Organization: Regulations.gov

General Comment

I am entirely competent on making my own freedom of choices including how I will retire.