alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mesuron D. TAYLOR, a/k/a Mezy, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4290.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 10, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 23, 2005.

Audrey Freeman jaCobs, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Matthew C. Ackley, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Mesuron D. Taylor, a.k.a. “Mezy,” appeals his thirty-four month term of imprisonment following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Taylor contends that the district court clearly erred in applying a four-level enhancement for possession of a firearm “with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense” pursuant to *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 2K2.1(b)(5) (2004). We find no error and affirm Taylor’s sentence.

“When reviewing the District Court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, ... [w]e accept the findings of fact of the District Court unless they are clearly erroneous and give due deference to the District Court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.” *United States v. Cutler,*36 F.3d 406, 407 (4th Cir.1994). Our review of the record reveals that Taylor and three others attempted to confront the individual *202responsible for the theft of a companion’s firearm. Testimonial evidence supported a finding that after some discussion on the necessity of being armed for the confrontation, Taylor retrieved a firearm in order to “go shoot his ass.” Police intercepted Taylor and his three companions prior to their arrival at their intended destination. A firearm was recovered from the vehicle. Because evidence supported the district court’s factual conclusions, we find that the district court did not clearly err in its application of the challenged enhancement.

Accordingly, we affirm Taylor’s sentence. 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*
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on July 3, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), AI Infrastructure Alliance, Inc. (“AIIA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Artefact, Paris, FRANCE; Comet ML, Inc., New York, NY; and Aporia, Tel Aviv, ISRAEL, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AIIA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On January 5, 2022, AIIA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 10, 2022 (87 FR 13759).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 18, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 14, 2023 (88 FR 55069).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-20766 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 11.1


                        OSTEOTECH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY NET INCOME PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                Three Months                         Six Months
                                                               Ended June 30,                      Ended June 30,
                                                    ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
                                                                                          -----------------   ------------------
                                                         1997                1996            1997                   1996
                                                                    ----------------------                 ---
   -----------------------------------------------------------------   ---------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                      <C>                   <C>              <C>                    <C>     
   Net income                                            $1,403,000            $202,000         $2,235,000             $373,000
                                                   ============================================================================

   Shares used in computing net income per share:

     Weighted average Common shares
      outstanding                                         7,950,510            7,760,941         7,926,274            7,662,884

     Weighted average Common shares
      issuable upon the exercise of
      outstanding stock options and
      warrants                                            1,705,928            1,587,724         1,738,652            1,693,852

     Application of assumed
      proceeds towards repurchase
      of outstanding Common shares
      using the Treasury Stock
      method                                               (974,556)(a)       (1,029,642)(a)  (1,042,451)(b)       (1,002,573)(b)
                                                   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Shares used in computation                       8,681,882            8,319,023         8,662,475            8,354,163
                                                   =============================================================================

   Primary net income per share                                $.16                  $.02             $.26                 $.04
   =============================================================================================================================
</TABLE>


     a) Computed  using assumed  proceeds of $8,441,602 and average market value
of $8.66 in 1997 and proceeds of $7,242,503 and an average market value of $7.03
in 1996.

     b) Computed  using  assumed  proceeds of $8,581,460  and an average  market
value of $8.23 in 1997 and proceeds of $7,322,793 and an average market value of
$7.30 in 1996.


                                      E-41
[641 NYS2d 778]

#### In the Matter of Philip R Rothschild, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

April 19, 1996

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Gerard M. La Russo,*Buffalo *(Vincent Scarsella*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Charles H. Dougherty,*Buffalo, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court on June 29, 1989, and is employed as an associate with a law firm in Akron, New York. The Grievance Committee filed a petition alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

*78Respondent’s answer denied material allegations of the petition and a Referee was appointed to conduct a hearing on the issues of fact raised by the pleadings. The Referee filed a report that petitioner now moves to confirm. Respondent did not oppose the motion but requested that the matter be returned to petitioner for further consideration.

The Referee found that respondent was retained to defend a client in a civil action. Respondent negotiated a settlement of the matter and received funds from that client to be applied to the settlement in installment payments. Instead of depositing those funds in the trust account of the law firm that employed him, respondent opened a trust account and an operating account in his own name. Respondent converted a portion of the funds during the period when the installment payments became due and directed that two checks be issued from his law firm’s trust account to complete the payments owed pursuant to the settlement agreement.

We confirm the findings of fact contained in the Referee’s report and conclude that respondent has violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, effective September 1, 1990:

DR 1-102 (A) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4])—engaging in conduct involving dishonesty;

DR 1-102 (A) (8) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [8])—engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law; and

DR 9-102 (B) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1])—failing to maintain, preserve and identify client funds.

In mitigation, we have considered the Referee’s findings that respondent had no experience in managing either a trust account or an operating account; that respondent did not benefit from the misconduct; and that respondent and his law firm have made all payments due pursuant to the settlement agreement. We also note that respondent has been active in providing *pro bono*services for poor and elderly clients.

We conclude that respondent should be suspended for six months and until further order of the Court *(see, Matter of Capobianco,*219 AD2d 179; *Matter of Mastine, 205*AD2d 299; *Matter of Kirby,*194 AD2d 83).

Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM S32342 (f rev)

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Corey R. ROGERS Airman First Class (E

- 3 ) , U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 2 August 2017

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Wendy L. Sherman (sitting alone)

. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 4 months , forfeiture of $1,031 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to E

- 1

. Sentence adjudged 29 June 2015 by SpCM convened at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Anthony D. Ortiz, USAF; Major Lauren A. Shure, USAF. For Appellee: Colonel Laura J. Megan

- Posch , USAF; Major Amanda L.K. Linares, USAF; Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF; Gerald R. Bruce , Esquire

. Before DREW , MAYBERRY , and MINK , Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ Thi s is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________

PE R CURIAM : We have this case for further review because the staff judge advocate originally erred in advising the convening authority that she could not disapprove Appellant ’s punitive discharge. See United States v. Rogers , 76 M.J. 621 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2017)

. Having resolved that issue, we find t he approvedUnited States v. Rogers , No. ACM S32342 (f rev)

2 findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, a nd no error materially prejudicial to Appellant ’ s substantial rights occurred. Artic les 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

KURT J. BRUBAKER Clerk of the Court
From: clarkathome@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:55:32 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Doris Clark

Mansfield, PA 16933
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation
                       Computation of Earnings per Share
                                  Exhibit 11.1
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                   For the Three Months Ended
                                                            March 31,
                                                   --------------------------
                                                       2000           1999
                                                   --------------------------

Net income (loss) available for basic income
  per share                                          $  3,784       $ (6,676)
 Interest expense on the Notes (net of tax) (1)            -              -
                                                   -----------    -----------
Net income (loss) available for diluted income
  per share                                          $  3,784       $ (6,676)
                                                   ===========    ===========

Basic income (loss) per share                        $   0.18       $  (0.31)
                                                   ===========    ===========

Diluted income (loss) per share                      $   0.18       $  (0.31)

Weighted average common Stock                          21,304         21,247
Dilutive stock options outstanding (treasury stock
   method) (1)                                             -              -
Shares assumed issued by conversion of the Notes (1)       -              -
                                                   -----------    -----------
Total common shares for diluted income (loss) per
  share                                                21,304         21,247
                                                   ===========    ===========

(1) Non dilutive.

Potential increase to net income for diluted
  income per share
 Interest expense on Notes (net of tax)              $     80       $    341

Potential issues of common stock for diluted
  income per share
 Weighted average stock options outstanding                 5          1,226
 Weighted average warrant outstanding                     200            300
 Weighted average shares issued assuming
  conversion of Notes                                     541          2,342

<PAGE>
No. 68440.

protests 328609-K (B), 59/11557, and 58/19272 (C) (New York).

#### Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature railroad equipment similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Polio’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc., et al.*(47 CCPA 137, C.A.D. 746), the merchandise was held dutiable, according to the component material of chief value or under specific provisions, as follows: The items marked “A” at the appropriate rate, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), or by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for manufactures in chief value of base metal; the items marked “B” at 13% percent under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for metal articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device; and the items marked “O” at 17% percent under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified by T.D. 51802, for switches and switchgear, which are not wiring apparatus. Other items, marked “A” and “B,” were held dutiable according to the separate components as follows: The “A” portion at the appropriate rate of duty, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in said paragraph 397, as modified by T.D. 51802 or by T.D. 54108, for manufactures in chief value of base metal, at a value of $2 per unit, and the “B” portion at 13% percent ad valorem under the provision in said paragraph 353, as modified by T.D. 52739, for metal articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, on the basis of the appraised *per se*unit value, less $2, as claimed.
From: judy_jimenez90@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:30:15 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Judy Jimenez

Blairstown, NJ 07825
From: switzersknd@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kevin Switzer

Micanopy, FL 32667