alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald Leonard SCALES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-4724.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 5, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Ronald Leonard Scales appeals his seventy-two month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On appeal, Scales asserts that the district court’s disregard of the federal sentencing guidelines runs afoul of our decision in *United States v. Hammoud,*378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.) (order) (recommending sentencing courts announce an alternative sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a), which treats the federal sentencing guidelines as advisory only), *opinion issued by*381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc), *vacated,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1051, 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).

However, after both parties filed briefs, *Hammoud*was overruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Boo*ker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), which held that the mandatory manner in which the federal sentencing guidelines required courts to impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the court by a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court’s failure to comply with a case that has now been overruled does not constitute error on appeal, plain or otherwise.

Moreover, we note that as required under *Booker,*the district court treated the guidelines as advisory, and accounted for arguments that would not have been allowed under a mandatory guidelines scheme. Accordingly, we find that because the district court imposed a sentence within the now-advisory guidelines range and below the ten-year statutory maximum for the offense, the sentence was reasonable. *Cf. United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005) (citing *Booker,*125 S.Ct. at 764-65, 767) (noting after *Booker,*sentencing courts should determine the sentencing range under the guidelines, consider the other factors under § 3553(a), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum). We therefore affirm Scales’ conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten*168tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
No. 53839.

#### Phillips Paper Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 147602-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Westwood Corporation Consolidated Balance Sheet (unaudited) for December 31,,
2000, and the related Consolidated Statement of Operations (unaudited) for the
nine months ended December 31, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                              71
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                        35
<INVENTORY>                                      5,704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,805
<PP&E>                                           5,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,486
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,601
<BONDS>                                          2,284
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,354
<SALES>                                         22,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,214
<CGS>                                           19,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (43)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 354
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (808)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        83
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (891)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (891)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.129)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.129)


</TABLE>
No. 56222.

protests 151066-K and 151067-K (Galveston).

#### W. R. Zanes and Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934


        Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) August 12, 1998


                              SCHUFF STEEL COMPANY
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


          DELAWARE                  000-22715                    86-0318760
(State or other jurisdiction       (Commission                  (IRS Employer
      of incorporation)            File Number)              Identification No.)





                1841 WEST BUCHANAN STREET, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85009
               (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)




        Registrant's telephone number, including area code (602) 252-7787


                                 Not applicable.
         (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)
<PAGE>   2
ITEM 5.     OTHER EVENTS

      On August 12, 1998, Schuff Steel Company ("Schuff" or the "Company")
reached a definitive agreement to acquire all of the issued and outstanding
shares of capital stock of Six Industries, Inc. ("Six Industries"). Information
relating to the transaction and Six Industries is set forth in the Press Release
attached as Exhibit 99.1.

ITEM 7.     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS.

(c)      Exhibits.

EXHIBIT
NUMBER      DESCRIPTION
------      -----------

 99.1       Press Release dated August 13, 1998


                                        2
<PAGE>   3
                                   SIGNATURES


   Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                  SCHUFF STEEL COMPANY



Date: August 26, 1998             By: \s\ Kenneth F. Zylstra
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                      (Principal Financial Officer and Duly
                                      Authorized Officer)


                                        3
<PAGE>   4
                                  EXHIBIT INDEX


EXHIBIT
NUMBER    DESCRIPTION
------    -----------

 99.1     Press Release dated August 13, 1998


                                        4
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-68;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and 4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.Date: March 24, 2006     By: /s/ Ellen Z. Lamale  Name: Ellen Z. Lamale  Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary
From: gwen@arm.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:39:30 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,

Gwen Wadell

Joplin, MO 64801
AM= 

~ RI-CO 

Mr. Michael F. Martin 

US Dept. of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

CARRIERS 

RE: Western Nebraska Regional Airport 

Docket OST-2003-14535. 

Dear Mr. Martin 

My name is James A. Kerr. I am the President of Ameri-Co Carriers and Ameri-Co Logistics. Ameri-Co 

Carriers and Logistics have a corporate office in Scottsbluff NE. Our business requires me to travel 

extensively. Myself and employees of Ameri-Co travel in and out of Scottsbluff over 250 times per year. 

Reliable air service is critical to our business. I have personally experienced the large number of flight 

cancellations into and out of Scottsbluff. While I utilized Great Lakes far longer than I should have, I had 

to make the decision to have all employees of Ameri-Co drive to alternative airports. 

I urge you to consider the recommendation of the Western Nebraska Airport Board. That 

recommendation is to award the service to Aerodynamics Inc. 

Awarding the service to Aerodynamics will allow Ameri-Co to begin flying in and out of Scottsbluff. This 

is critical to our business to have an air carrier that can provide consistent service. 

Sincerely 

James A. Kerr 

President
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 88

To express the support of the Senate for programs such as the Jump$tart

Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 21, 1997

Mr. D’AMATO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

RESOLUTION

To express the support of the Senate for programs such

as the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy.

Whereas at a time when more consumers are using credit

than ever before, the financial skills of young adults are

not adequate to cope with the rapid, technologically driven development of new financial products and new ways

to deliver those products;

Whereas lack of financial management skills is a major cause

of rising consumer bankruptcies and family crises, and

generally impairs the health and welfare of the general

public;

Whereas it is critical that students and young adults develop

functional skills in money management, including basic

budgeting, savings, investing, spending, and income;
2

•SRES 88 IS

Whereas the Senate commends the Jump$tart Coalition for

Personal Financial Literacy for its effort to promote personal financial literacy; and

Whereas the Senate supports the Coalition’s objective of promoting education to ensure that basic personal management skills are attained during the kindergarten through

12th grade educational experience: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

2 goal of having young adults who can enter the mainstream

3 of an increasingly complex financial world with confidence

4 and prudence is one which can be advanced through co5 ordinated efforts such as the Jump$tart Coalition for Per6 sonal Financial Literacy.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                Consent of Ernst & Young LLP Independent Auditors


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the SSE Telecom, Inc. 1997 Equity
Participation Plan of our report dated December 4, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of SSE Telecom, Inc. included in
its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 27, 1997, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                                /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

San Jose, California
April 30, 1998

                                       12
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,596,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,165,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,024,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,016,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,237,000
<PP&E>                                       6,296,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (3,130,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,526,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,317,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,000     
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,857,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,526,000
<SALES>                                     38,660,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,843,000
<CGS>                                       36,160,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,450,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                393,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            393,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   450,000<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13<F2>
        
<FN>
<F1>
NET INCOME INCLUDES $57,000 RELATING TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF REDEEMABLE COMMON
STOCK TO MARKET AS DEFINED WITHIN THE AGREEMENT.
<F2>
PRIMARY REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE AND FULLY DILUTED REPRESENTS DILUTED
EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

May 24, 1965

No. 69315.

#### Harper, Robinson Co. and Stelber Cycle Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/16542 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
123 STAT. 2084 PUBLIC LAW 111–77—OCT. 19, 2009 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2498: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111–213 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Sept. 9, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 24, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–77 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the Federal building located at 844 North Rush Street in Chicago, 

Illinois, as the ‘‘William O. Lipinski Federal Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The Federal building located at 844 North Rush Street in 

Chicago, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William 

O. Lipinski Federal Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred 

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William 

O. Lipinski Federal Building’’. 

Approved October 19, 2009. 

Oct. 19, 2009 

[H.R. 2498] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
No. 55736.

protests 136041—K, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### William D. McGill *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Prom an examination of the papers in each case the ■court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protests were therefore overruled.
National Flood Insurance Program

The Benefits of 

Flood Insurance 

Versus Disaster Assistance
Here’s What To Tell Your Clients About 

The Benefits Of Flood Insurance Versus Disaster Assistance

Disaster Assistance

■ Most forms of federal disaster 

assistance require a Presidential 

declaration.

■ Federal disaster assistance 

declarations are not awarded in all 

flooding incidents.

■ The most typical form of disaster 

assistance is a loan that must be 

repaid with interest.

■ The duration of a Small Business 

Administration (SBA) disaster 

home loan could extend to 30 

years.

■ The average Individuals and 

Households Program award for 

Presidential disaster declarations 

related to flooding in 2008 was 

less than $4,000.

■ Repayment on a $50,000 SBA 

disaster home loan is $240 a 

month or $2,880 annually at 

4% interest.

Flood Insurance

■ You are in control. Flood 

insurance claims are paid even if 

a disaster is not declared by the 

President.

■ Between 20 and 25 percent of 

all claims paid by the NFIP are 

outside of Special Flood Hazard 

Areas.

■ There is no payback requirement.

■ Flood insurance policies are 

continuous, and are not nonrenewed or cancelled for repeat 

losses.

■ Flood insurance reimburses you 

for all covered building losses up 

to $250,000 and $500,000 for 

businesses. Contents coverage is 

also available up to $100,000 for 

homeowners and $500,000 for 

businesses.

■ The average cost of a flood 

insurance policy is a little more 

than $500 annually. The cost of a 

preferred risk policy is less than 

$200 annually, depending on 

where you live.

To order The Benefits of Flood Insurance Versus Disaster Assistance as a stuffer for client mailings, 

call 1-800-480-2520 and ask for form F-216.

F-217 (11/08)

For more information about the NFIP and flood insurance, call 1-800-427-4661, or contact your insurance company or agent.

For an agent referral, call 1-888-435-6637 • TDD 1-800-427-5593 • http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip • http://www.floodsmart.gov
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1


                 AWARENESS LETTER OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP



November 6, 1998


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that Central Newspapers, Inc. has included our reports dated 
April 27, 1998, August 3, 1998 and October 19, 1998 (issued pursuant to the 
provisions of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 71) in the Prospectus 
constituting part of its Registration Statement on Form S-3 to be filed on or 
about November 6, 1998. We are also aware of our responsibilities under the 
Securities Act of 1933.


Yours very truly,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
No. 57441.

#### D. C Andrews & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 203151-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.