alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 2, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51372

Summary Calendar

 

LONNIE D. CLARK; RUBEN WHITE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

ANDREWS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT; ANDREWS COUNTY, TEXAS;

ROYCE UNDERWOOD, Tax Assessor-Collector for 

Andrews County, Texas,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-02-CV-119

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

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

PER CURIAM:*

Lonnie D. Clark (Clark) and Ruben White (White) appeal the

dismissal of their suit against various taxing authorities of

Andrews County, Texas, alleging violations of their due process

and equal protection rights guaranteed under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments. Clark and White asserted that the Andrews

County taxing authorities assessed their property at a much
No. 02-51372

-2-

higher value than comparable properties and ignored their

requests for an administrative hearing before the local tax

board. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, finding that the action was barred by the

Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341.

The Tax Injunction Act prohibits the federal district court

from exercising jurisdiction over a suit to “enjoin, suspend or

restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under

State law where a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy may be had

in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Clark and White

could adjudicate their claims fully in Texas state court. See

McQueen v. Bullock, 907 F.2d 1544, 1547-50 (5th Cir. 1990). They

“have not demonstrated that the state courts have refused to

entertain their federal claim[s]” or “that their state remedy is

uncertain or speculative.” See Smith v. Travis County Education

District, 968 F.2d 453, 456 (5th Cir. 1992).

Thus, the Texas state courts provide Clark and White with

“plain,” “speedy,” and “efficient” remedies, and the federal

court is barred from reviewing their claims by the Tax Injunction

Act. See McQueen, 907 F.2d at 1550. The district court did not

err in dismissing Clark and White’s claims for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the district court

judgment is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 1

REG - 461-04

LEGAL PROCESSING DIV, Fee ye
PUBLICATION & REGULAT ony
BRANCH SONS

As of: February 12, 2010
Received: February 11, 2010
Status: Posted
PUBLIC SUBMISSION Prstes: Feorary 22, 2010
‘Comments Due: May 03, 2010}
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0006
Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants & Beneficiaries in
Retirement Plans

Comment On: IRS-2010-0006-0001
Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in
Retirement Plans

Document: IRS-2010-0006-0019
Comment on FR Doc # N/A

Submitter Information

Name: Robert Wayne Schutt
Address:

Plano,
Submitter's Representative: Me
Organization: Me
Government Agency Type: Federal
Government Agency: AOA

General Comment

I blame all US Gov officials for the mini depression we are in now. (Too many facts to cite.)

So funny this comes just before the Boomers will be wanting to retire.

Especially Bill Clinton who passed the China most favored trading nation bill and revoked Glass-
Steagall.

How could they possibly pick retirement plans for us when they stole so much of Social Security
funding. (Pay as you Go)

This annuity scheme will be the same. Identical to large manufacturing giving pension
concessions years ago to employees, not funding them and now pleading poverty so they don't
have to pay. (It was planned that way)

If it is just an offer for people in addition to every other retirement vehicle we have now, then
okay.

I have always heard that Annuities are laden with fees, charges, and many other ways to fatten
the wallets of those Insurance agents who sell them.

I will never trust the US Government in any retirement scheme because their track record shows
they are crooks.

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=..._ 2/12/2010
Exhibit 23-3-2

                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants


As independent  public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the  incorporation by
reference of our report in this Form 10-K for the year period ended December 31,
2000,  into  Commonwealth   Edison  Company's  (the  Company)  previously  filed
prospectuses as follows: (1) prospectus dated August 21, 1986, constituting part
of Form S-3 Registration Statement File No. 33-6879, as amended (relating to the
Company's Debt  Securities and Common  Stock);  (2) prospectus  dated January 6,
1997,  constituting  part of Form S-3  Registration  Statement File No. 33-51379
(relating to the Company's Debt Securities and Cumulative Preference Stock); and
(3)  Form  S-8  Registration  Statement  File  No.  333-33847  (relating  to the
Commonwealth Edison Company Excess Benefit Savings Plan).



Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 2, 2001
#### § 555.4 Definitions.

*Administrator* means the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator or his delegate.

*Passenger motor vehicle* means a motor vehicle with motive power designed to carry not more than 12 individuals, but does not include a truck not designed primarily to carry its operator or passengers, or a motorcycle.

*United States* means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, and American Samoa.

[38 FR 2694, Jan. 29, 1973, as amended at 64 FR 2861, Jan. 19, 1999]
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.183 What information do laboratories report to MROs regarding split specimen results? ( a ) As the laboratory responsible for testing the split specimen, you must report split specimen test results by checking the “Reconfirmed” box and/or the “Failed to Reconfirm” box (Step 5(b)) on Copy 1 of the CCF, as appropriate, and by providing clarifying remarks using current HHS Mandatory Guidelines requirements.
( b ) As the laboratory certifying scientist, enter your name, sign, and date the CCF.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 73 FR 35972, June 25, 2008]
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

*

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3250SD

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of South Dakota.

*

Robert Sam Raisch, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: February 10, 1998

Filed: February 20, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge. *

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Sam Raisch, Jr. appeals his conviction and sentence for assaulting a

federal officer. Raisch contends his due process rights were violated because the

district court failed to inform him of the possible application of a sentencing

enhancement until shortly before trial. Raisch also raises several contentions about the

instructions, the handling of discovery, and the admissibility of evidence offered by

Raisch. Finally, Raisch challenges the district court's enhancement of his sentence for

physical contact with the arresting law enforcement officers. After careful review of
-2-

the record, we conclude Raisch's due process argument was mooted by the sentence

he received and the district court correctly resolved Raisch's remaining claims. We are

satisfied that no error of law appears, and the district court did not misapply the

sentencing guidelines. We affirm Raisch's conviction and sentence. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5 D 202 3

- 0820
LT Case No. 20 2 0

- CF

- 00 0640

- A

_____________________________

B ERNIE R AY C ARROLL

,

Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. James R. Baxley , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan

, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bernie Ray Carroll, Century , pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

August 30, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.2 In this Anders * appeal, we affirm without comment Bernie
Carroll’s convictions and sentences on each of the eight counts for which he was found guilty . However, the law requires that we reverse the trial court’s imposition of the $250 fine and related surcharge on count I

.

While Carroll was properly sentenced to life in prison with no hope of parole on count I (sexual battery upon a person under twelve years of age)

, classified as a capital offense under Florida law, section 775.083(1), Fl orid a Stat utes (2018)

, does not authorize imposition of th e $250 fine on this count. See § 775.083 (1) , Fla. Stat. (“ A person who has been convicted of an offense other than a capital felony may be sentenced to pay a fine in addition to any punishment

. . . .” (emphasis added) ) ; see also Hare v. State , 687 So. 2d 1371, 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)

.

Accordingly

, while we a ffirm the convictions and sentences imposed on each count , we reverse the imposition of the $250 fine and related surcharge on count I. This case is remand ed to the trial

court for ent ry of an amended judgment and sentence consistent with this opinion

.

A FFIRMED in part ; R EVERSED in part ; and R EMANDED with
instructions.

E DWARDS

, C.J., and E ISNAUGLE and S OUD

, JJ., concur

.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331

.

_____________________________

* See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

.
Addendum to Lease Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.6 
  
 ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT 
 W. DAVID HILL AND 
 EASTON BANK & TRUST 
  
 Addendum to be attached to and made a permanent part of the Agreement of Lease dated July 1,
1993 and all following addendum by and between, EASTON BANK & TRUST, Landlord, and, W. DAVID HILL, Tenant, regarding 501 Idlewild Avenue, Easton, Maryland, 21601 subject to the following: 
  
 1. The term of the lease shall be from July 1, 1998 until June 30, 2003.

  
 All other terms and conditions of said Agreement of Lease shall remain the
same. 
  

					
	 WITNESSES:
	 	 	 	 
			
	 /s/ Rose K. Kleckner

	 	 	 	 /s/ Pamela A. Mussenden


	 	 	 	 	 EASTON BANK & TRUST by

	 	 	 	 	 Pamela Mussenden, Landlord

	 	 	 	 	 Date of
Execution:                        7-1-98


			
	 WITNESSES:
	 	 	 	 
			
	 /s/ Sheila Wainwright

	 	 	 	 /s/ W. David Hill


	 	 	 	 	 W. DAVID HILL, Tenant

	 	 	 	 	 Date of
Execution:                        7-1-98
§ 37.49 Designation of responsible person(s) for intercity and commuter rail stations. ( a ) The responsible person(s) designated in accordance with this section shall bear the legal and financial responsibility for making a key station accessible in the same proportion as determined under this section.
( b ) In the case of a station more than fifty percent of which is owned by a public entity, the public entity is the responsible party.
( c ) In the case of a station more than fifty percent of which is owned by a private entity the persons providing commuter or intercity rail service to the station are the responsible parties, in a proportion equal to the percentage of all passenger boardings at the station attributable to the service of each, over the entire period during which the station is made accessible.
( d ) In the case of a station of which no entity owns more than fifty percent, the owners of the station (other than private entity owners) and persons providing intercity or commuter rail service to the station are the responsible persons. ( 1 ) Half the responsibility for the station shall be assumed by the owner(s) of the station. The owners shall share this responsibility in proportion to their ownership interest in the station, over the period during which the station is made accessible.
( 2 ) The person(s) providing commuter or intercity rail service to the station shall assume the other half of the responsibility. These persons shall share this responsibility. These persons shall share this responsibility for the station in a proportion equal to the percentage of all passenger boardings at the station attributable to the service of each, over the period during which the station is made accessible.
( e ) Persons who must share responsibility for station accessibility under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section may, by agreement, allocate their responsibility in a manner different from that provided in this section.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JUSTO MANUEL GONZALEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00059-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2016 Decided: October 19, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill 

Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Justo Manuel Gonzalez pled guilty to conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Gonzalez to 

210 months’ imprisonment, and he now appeals, raising a single 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Gonzalez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is 

only cognizable on direct appeal if it conclusively appears on 

the record that counsel was ineffective. United States v. 

Galloway, 749 F.3d 238, 241 (4th Cir. 2014). To succeed on a 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Gonzalez must show 

that: (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective 

standard of reasonableness”; and (2) “the deficient performance 

prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668, 687-88 (1984). The record before us does not conclusively 

establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, 

Gonzalez’s claim is not cognizable on direct appeal and should 

be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 674.29 Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans: general requirements. ( a ) In determining whether to approve a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for a rail fixed guideway public transportation system, an SSOA must evaluate whether the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan is consistent with the regulations implementing such Plans; is consistent with the National Public Transportation Safety Plan; and is in compliance with the program standard set by the SSOA.
( b ) In determining whether a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan is compliant with 49 CFR part 673, an SSOA must determine, specifically, whether the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan is approved by the RTA's board of directors or equivalent entity; sets forth a sufficiently explicit process for safety risk management, with adequate means of risk mitigation for the rail fixed guideway public transportation system; includes a process and timeline for annually reviewing and updating the safety plan; includes a comprehensive staff training program for the operations personnel directly responsible for the safety of the RTA; identifies an adequately trained safety officer who reports directly to the general manager, president, or equivalent officer of the RTA; includes adequate methods to support the execution of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan by all employees, agents, and contractors for the rail fixed guideway public transportation system; and sufficiently addresses other requirements under the regulations at 49 CFR part 673.
( c ) In an instance in which an SSOA does not approve a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, the SSOA must provide a written explanation, and allow the RTA an opportunity to modify and resubmit its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for the SSOA's approval.
#### § 29.402 Is the Tribe responsible for the funds included in a funding agreement?

The Tribe is responsible for implementing the Tribe's PSFAs using the funds included in a funding agreement and for administering the funds in accordance with this part. In addition, the Tribe must carry out its PSFAs in accordance with the funding agreement, and all applicable statutes and regulations identified in the funding agreement.
EXHIBIT 10(F)

                            COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS


Compensatory Arrangement with the Board of Directors
-----------------------------------------------------

Effective May 27, 2004, non-employee board members receive an annual retainer of
$16,000  paid in  quarterly  increments.  Audit  committee  members  receive  an
additional  $6,500 and the Chairman of the Audit  Committee  receives  $9,000 in
addition to his audit committee compensation. Each independent director receives
a grant of 10,000 CompuDyne  non-qualified stock options upon his or her initial
election  as a director,  5,000 of which vest after two years and the  remaining
5,000 vest after three years. An annual grant of 10,000 CompuDyne  non-qualified
stock options is granted to each Director thereafter;  5,000 of the options vest
after two years and the remaining 5,000 vest after three years.  The grant price
of the options is equal to the fair market value of the common stock on the date
of grant.

Compensatory Arrangements with Certain Named Executive Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------

The following named executive officers of the Registrant (as of the Registrant's
2006 Proxy Statement) do not have employment agreements with the Registrant and,
accordingly,  their  employment  with  the  Registrant  is "at  will."  For  the
Registrant's  2007 fiscal  year,  the current  annual base salary for each named
executive below is the following:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     Name and Title                                                          Fiscal 2007 Salary
     --------------                                                          ------------------

<S>                                                                                 <C>
     Martin A. Roenigk, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer             $   275,000

     Geoffrey F. Feidelberg, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                  $   288,750

     Bradley Wiggins(1), Chief Operating Officer                                    $   260,000

     Gary Mangus, President of Institutional Security Systems                       $   210,000

     Philip Blackmon, Executive Vice President                                      $   150,000
</TABLE>


The annual base salaries are subject to adjustment  pursuant to the Registrant's
employee  compensation  policies  in effect  from time to time.  Each  executive
officer is eligible to receive a bonus and other employee  benefits  pursuant to
the Registrant's employee benefit plans.







---------------------
(1) Mr. Wiggins Employment Agreement was terminated effective March 30, 2007.


                                       64
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                2,886
<SECURITIES>                         47,156
<RECEIVABLES>                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       51,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                447
<OTHER-SE>                          (25,447)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         51,638
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      4,555
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         423
<INCOME-TAX>                            242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     181
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                            181
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0

        

</TABLE>