alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30505 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARNOLD MALCOLM PILLETTE, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-20067-02

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1996 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arnold Malcolm Pillette appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute and interstate travel in aid of illegal activity. His argument that U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), which provides that the penalty for cocaine base is 100 times higher than the penalty for cocaine powder, violates the Equal Protection Clause is foreclosed. This court has determined that the penalty scheme in § 2D1.1 is rationallyNo. 96-30505 - 2 - related to the legitimate government interest in protecting the general welfare. See United States v. Wilson , 77 F.3d 105, 112 (5th Cir. 1996). Pillette’s new claim on appeal that the Government did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the cocaine base charged in the indictment was crack cocaine within the meaning of § 2D1.1 is frivolous.
AFFIRMED.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CECIL HOLMES,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, ET AL.,

Respondents.

Civil Action No. 05-3857

MEMORANDUM/ORDER

On June 26, 2006, petitioner filed a revised petition in the above-captioned matter in this

court seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a previous habeas

petition in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, labeled Civil Action No. 99-5022, which

challenged the same conviction and/or sentence, and which was considered on the merits and

denied as untimely. In such circumstances, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2266, provides in relevant part that before a “second or

successive” habeas petition can be filed with the district court, the petitioner must first file a

motion in “the appropriate court of appeals” for an order “authorizing the district court to

consider” the petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without such authorization from

the court of appeals, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the habeas

petition. See Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998); Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S.

Case 2:05-cv-03857-LP Document 5 Filed 12/28/06 Page 1 of 2
2

651, 657 (1996); Benchoff v. Colleran, 404 F.3d 812, 816 (3d Cir. 2005); In re Minarik, 166 F.3d

591 (3d Cir. 1999). This rule only applies where the relevant prior case was considered on the

merits and denied. See Villot v. Varner, 373 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2004); Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d

707 (3d Cir. 2004); Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1999); Hull v. Kyler, 190 F.3d 88 (3d

Cir. 1999); Christy v. Horn, 115 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 1997). Dismissal for failure to comply with

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations constitutes a decision on the merits. See Chaplin v.

United States, No. 05-6647, slip op. at 1 (E.D. Pa. May 16, 2006). Therefore, petitioner’s current

habeas petition is “second or successive” and this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to

consider it. The “appropriate court of appeals” in which a motion should be filed for

authorization to proceed in this court is the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 

If that court grants that motion, petitioner can then return to this court and refile his “second or

successive” habeas petition.

Accordingly, this 28th day of December, 2006, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. This civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the ground that this court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over it.

2. The Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania shall 

mark this matter as CLOSED in this court for all purposes, including statistics.

 /s/ Louis H. Pollak 

 Pollak, J.

Case 2:05-cv-03857-LP Document 5 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 2
18.11
Exhibit 32.01   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Endeavor Power Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tammy-Lynn McNabb, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and,  (2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Tammy-Lynn McNabb By: Tammy-Lynn McNabb Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: May 20, 2009  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

In the document appearing on page 75497, FR Doc E6-21360, Procurement List Additions and Deletions, in the issue of December 15, 2006 the Committee published additions and deletions with a comment period to end date of January 21, 2007. The Committee is making a correction to the comment date. The new deadline for the submission of comments is January 14, 2007. 

In the document appearing on page 76967, FR Doc E6-21976, Procurement List Additions & Deletions, in the issue of December 22, 2006, Committee published additions and deletions with a comment period to end date of January 28, 2007. The Committee is making a correction to the comment date. The new deadline for the submission of comments is January 21, 2007. 

Sheryl D. Kennerly, 

Director, Information Management.

 [FR Doc. E7-327 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.1




Compensation of Non-Employee Directors of Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation




Effective as of the 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Integra LifeSciences Holdings
Corporation (the “Company”), the annual compensation payable to non-employee directors of the
Company will be as set forth below.



Directors will receive an annual equity grant, at their election, of 7,500 options or 1,875 shares
of restricted stock, with the Chairman receiving 10,000 options or 2,500 shares of restricted
stock.



Directors will also receive an annual retainer of $60,000, payable in one of four ways, at their
election: (1) in cash, (2) in restricted stock, (3) one half in cash and one half in restricted
stock or (4) in options to purchase common stock (the number of options determined by valuing the
options at 25% of the fair market value of the common stock underlying the options), with a maximum
of 7,500 options.



Cash payments will be paid in arrears on a quarterly basis. Options and restricted stock will be
granted on the date of the annual meeting of stockholders at which directors are elected.



Options and restricted stock will vest on a quarterly basis and be fully vested one year after the
grant date. Options will expire on the eight year anniversary of the grant date. The exercise
price of options granted will be the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the grant date,
and restricted stock will be valued based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the
date of the grant.



The Company will pay reasonable travel and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by non-employee
directors in connection with attendance at meetings to transact business of the Company or
attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors or any committee thereof.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY LILY : CIVIL ACTION

:

:

v. :

: NO. 02-cv-02784

:

ALDI, INC. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s expert report(s) shall be exchanged no later than February 3, 2003. 

Defendant’s expert report(s) shall be exchanged no later than March 17, 2003.

2. All discovery shall be completed no later than April 1, 2003. 

3. All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than April 15, 2003; responses to

such motions shall be filed no later than April 30, 2003. The Parties may file supplemental

briefs, however, such filings will not necessarily delay the Court’s ruling on the subject motion.

4. A settlement conference will be scheduled with Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith

upon the request of counsel.

5. This case will be placed in the Court's trial pool on June 2, 2003. Once placed in

the trial pool, a case may be called upon 24 hours notice to Counsel.

6. Originals of all filings required under this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of the

Court, and a courtesy copy of the same shall be submitted to the chambers of the Honorable R.

Barclay Surrick (Room 5118).

Case 2:02-cv-02784-RBS Document 10 Filed 11/26/2002 Page 1 of 2
2

7. Deadlines for the exchange of trial exhibits and witness lists, motions in limine and

other pretrial submissions will be set by further Order of this Court.

8. The unavailability of any witness, as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

32(a)(3), will not be a ground to delay the commencement or progress of an ongoing trial. A

party may, however, use oral or videotape depositions at trial of any witness whose testimony a

party believes essential to the presentation of that party's case, regardless of whether that witness

is a party, a non-party or an expert, provided that such witness, including any witness offered for

purpose of impeachment, has been identified to all parties at least thirty (30) days prior to the

discovery deadline.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________

R. Barclay Surrick, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02784-RBS Document 10 Filed 11/26/2002 Page 2 of 2
!"#$!%!"!"&'("%!%!)'*%)'

!%"&*)+&&""*!$**%,-&),*!%+(!"$ ""&)*"$

	 $*"&."&	 ""*"$.$*"&"*)*"/*%*$('*010234

&&$%" "&	*"35-343$"&.%$*!6*%)*'*%)!+

'"!)!""& !"#%$!%!")% "-

& $% )*)!"".)$	 "6*%)*)13-3-

"%'*00234

 "$))'""%

	




-37104122

!"#$!%&'( %)
$*
	**#+$

8089"
*%"*"

.*,!.54423

:;21<5;00230

.=:;21<5;002>4

,-&),*?".,)-*+


	
,

*"$"*)!%**" $"&'("$	 $**%%""&


)!".'$!+!"&0!%%$'*0234-

	



Filed 12/2/2015 4:09:25 PM

Billy Fox

District Clerk

Bowie County, Texas

Teresa Tipps, Deputy

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/3/2015 8:38:00 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
c) the defendant participated in the act, i.e. lying to federal agents on
August 16-17, 2001, contemplating that the life of a person would be
taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with
a person, other than one of the participants in the offense?

YES

NO

d) at least one victim died on September 11, 2001, as a direct result of
the defendant’s act, i.e. the defendant’s lies to federal agents on

August 16-17, 2001?
YES LO

NO

The Foreperson must sign the form, provide his juror number, and write in the
date. You should then advise the Court that you have reached a decision.

0533

Juror Number of Foreperson

Foreperson

DATE: (i 3 , 2006



THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIR‘ FILED
Alexandria Division OPEN Count
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _ ) APR ~ 3 2006
, va orerass LS RERSGRTRERB
)
ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUL )
a/k/a “Shaqil,” )
a/k/a “Abu Khalid al Sahrawi,” )
)
Defendant )
SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

1. As to Count I (Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism Transcending
National Boundaries), do you unanimously find that the Government has
established beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a) the defendant was eighteen years of age or older at the time of the
offense?

ves

NO

b) the defendant intentionally participated in an act, i.e. lying to
federal agents on August 16-17, 2001?

ves_

NO

13


c) the defendant participated in the act, i.e. lying to federal agents on
August 16-17, 2001, contemplating that the life of a person would be
taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with
a person, other than one of the participants in the offense?

ves

NO

d) at least one victim died on September 11, 2001, as a direct result of
the defendant’s act, i.e. the defendant’s lies to federal agents on

August 16-17, 2001?
YES Lo

NO

2. As to Count III (Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft), do you unanimously find
that the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a) the defendant was eighteen years of age or older at the time of the
offense?

ves 4

NO

b) the defendant intentionally participated in an act, i.e. lying to
federal agents on August 16-17, 2001?

ves 4

NO


c) the defendant participated in the act, i.e. lying to federal agents on
August 16-17, 2001, contemplating that the life of a person would be
taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with
a person, other than one of the participants in the offense?

ves JO

NO

d) at least one victim died on September 11, 2001, as a direct result of
the defendant’s act, i.e. the defendant’s lies to federal agents on

August 16-17, 2001?
YES So

NO

3. As to Count IV (Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction), do you
unanimously find that the Government has established beyond a reasonable

doubt that:

a) the defendant was eighteen years of age or older at the time of the
offense?

ves

NO

b) the defendant intentionally participated in an act, i.e. lying to
federal agents on August 16-17, 2001?

yes /

NO
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WILSON,

NO. CIV. S-04-633 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

PIER 1 IMPORTS (U.S.), INC.;

and MELLON/PIER 1 PROPERTIES

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I,

Defendants.

 /

A hearing in this case is presently scheduled for July 18th,

2005, on the Law and Motion Calendar of this court pursuant to the

plaintiff’s motion to strike. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h),

the motion is removed from calendar and submitted upon the record

and briefs on file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 12, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00633-LKK -CMK Document 57 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 1
# U n i te d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 16-5067 September Term, 2017 1: 08-c v -012 52-BJR Filed O n: March 9 , 20 18 Angela Cleme nte ,

Ap pellan t
v
. Fede ral Bure au of

Investigation, et al., Ap pellee s

BEFORE: Garlan d, Ch ief Jud ge; Hend erson , Rogers, T ate l, Grif f ith, Kavana ugh*, S riniv asan , Millett, P illard, W ilkins, an d K atsa s, Circuit Judges; Edwards, Se nior Circuit Jud ge

O R D E R Upon con siderat ion o f ap pellan t’s pe tition for rehe aring en ban c an d th e resp onse the reto; ap pellan t’s m otion for lea v e to reply; and the ab sence of a re quest b y

an y me mb er of

the cou rt for a v ote on the pe tition, it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion for lea v e b e d enie d. It is FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e p etition be de nied

. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Ken R. Mea dows Depu ty Cl erk

* A se para te st ate me nt b y Circuit Jud ge Kavana ugh, co ncurring in th e d enia l of rehe aring en ban c, is at tach ed.

# U n i te d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 16-5067 September Term, 2017

Kavana ugh, Circuit Judg e , con curring in the de nial o f rehe aring en ban c: As e x plaine d in my sepa rate opin ion in Morley v . CIA, 71 9 F.3 d 6 89 (D.C. Cir. 201 3), th is Court’s four-facto r test for awarding atto rney’s fe es in FOIA ca ses is incon sistentw ith FOI A’s te xt an d stru cture, an d im perm issibly favors some FOIA plaint if fs over othe r equallyde serv ing FOIA p laintif fs. In an ap prop riate ca se, I be liev e th at t he en ban c Court shou ld re-examin e a nd jettison tha t four-facto r test. Bu t for reaso ns e x plaine d by the G overnme nt in its resp onse to the pe tition for rehe aring en ban c, th is case is not an app ropriate vehicle for such recon siderat ion.

Page 2
To: Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov> Date: 01/20/2010 05:47PM cc: Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: RE: NO2 NAAQS RIA



### Thanks, Amy, this is great and I appreciate your sharp e ye.

Best regards,

heidi

From: Lamson.Amy@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Lamson.Amy@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:46 PM To: King, Heidi R. Cc: Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov; Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov Subject: NO2 NAAQS RIA

Hi, Heid i.
Wh ile cleaning up the track changes in the NO2 NAAQS RIA, we found some boilerplate language in Chapter 1 (page 1

- 8) that has not been updated in the past several RIAs. Since you haven't seen this revision, Ron asked me to forward this revised languag e to you. Wepresume that this will be a non

- controversial revision. Original: 

### To streamline this RIA, this document refers to several previously published documents, including three technical documents EPA produced to prepare for promulgation of the NO 2 

### NAAQS. The first was a Criteria Document created by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (published in 2007), which presented the latest available pertinent information on atmospheric science, air quality, exposure, health effects, and environmenta l effects of NO 2 

### . The second was an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) published in 2008 that evaluated the policy implications of the key studies and scientific information contained in the Criteria Document. The third was a risk and exposure assessment (REA) for various standard levels. The REA also includes staff conclusions and recommendations to the Administrator regarding potential revisions to the standards.Revised:

To streamline this RIA, this document refers to several previously published doc uments, including two technical documents EPA produced to prepare for promulgation of the NO 2 NAAQS. The first was the Integrated Science Assessment created by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (U.S. EPA, 2007), which presented the latest available pertinent information on atmospheric science, air quality, exposure, health effects, and environmental effects of NO 2 . The second was a risk and exposure assessment (REA) (U.S. EPA, 2008) for various standard levels. The REA also includes staff conclusions and recommendations to the Administrator regarding potential revisions to the standards. Thanks! Am y Lamson Air Benefit and Cost Group Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards US Environmental Protection Agency 109 TWAlexander Dr. (C439

- 02) Resea rch Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541

-4383 Fax: (919) 541

- 0839
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2017 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000Draft&K000000 Bulletin No. 2017-04	&"Arial,Bold"VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 03-02-17
Before the Second Division,

March 27, 1946

No. 50959.

#### Protest 121842-K of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

*246Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of merchandise consist of pincushions or emeries in chief value of cotton, similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Abstracts 48406 and 49006, save that one class of items is made or cut from velvet pile fabrics composed in chief value of cotton, but that all of said cotton has a staple of less than 1)4 inches. In accordance therewith certain items of merchandise were held properly dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 923, as manufactures wholly or in chief value of cotton, not specially provided for, and other items at 62)4 percent under paragraph 909, as articles made or cut from velveteens or velvets, wholly or in chief value of cotton.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN LEE CHRISTMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0884 FCD PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On December 22, 2004, and January 6, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued orders

denying plaintiff’s motions for discovery. On March 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for

reconsideration of that order. Local Rule 72-303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be

final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within ten court days . . . from the

date of service of the ruling on the parties.” E.D. Local Rule 72-303(b). Plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s orders of December 22, 2006, and January 6, 2006, is

untimely.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 23, 2006, request

for reconsideration is denied.

DATED:March 31, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 58 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2006

The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Joseph J. BouffardName: Joseph J. BouffardTitle: President




By:

/s/ Bonnie M. KleinName: Bonnie M. KleinTitle: Senior Vice President and Treasurer


Date: July 16, 2007