alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Roy J. WHITEHEAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-2149.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 28, 2005.

Roy J. Whitehead, Las Cruces, NM, pro se.

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Ray J. Whitehead, a former prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court, asserting violations of his federal civil rights. Specifically, Whitehead alleged that since taking part in a 1996 evidentiary hearing while he was in the custody of Defendant, he has been tortured by voices and visions. He further asserts that the alleged torture has resulted in the denial of his right to due process of law, access to the courts, and freedom of religion. In a motion filed with the district court, Whitehead stated that he was “being tortured electronically” by means of “a cell phone in his teeth.” The district court granted Whitehead’s motion to proceed *in forma pauperis*but dismissed his complaint *sua sponte*pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), concluding that it failed to state a claim. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Whitehead appealed.

We have reviewed the record, the appellate briefs, and the applicable law and conclude that the dismissal of Whitehead’s § 1983 complaint was proper. Accordingly, the district court’s order dismissing Whitehead’s complaint is affirmed for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated May 12,2005.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Argan, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended, October 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Arthur F. Trudel, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
            Company.


December 13, 2006                      By: /s/ Arthur F. Trudel
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Arthur F. Trudel
                                           Senior Vice President,
                                           Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
(Reap. Dec. 9604)

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc., a/c Fiddes-Moore & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3550, etc.

(Decided February 25, 1960)

*Hetman & Mclnerey*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel have submitted the appeals for reap-

praisement enumerated in the attached schedule for decision upon stipulation on the basis of which I find foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the plywood involved, and that such value in each case is the unit invoiced prices in French francs per 1,000 square feet, less 15.35 per centum tax, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 46936.

#### Protests 861957-G, etc., of Abels Wasserberg Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 12(b)

                             BNP U.S. FUNDING L.L.C.

                Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges
                        and preferred securities dividend
                          (in thousands, except ratios)


                                                              Twelve-month
                                                              period ended
                                                            December 31, 1999
                                                            -----------------
Net income..........................................            $  57,685

Fixed Charges
      Audit Fees....................................                   30
      Trustee Fees..................................                  120
      Administrative Fees...........................                  250
                                                                ---------
Total Fixed Charges.................................                  400
                                                                ---------
Earnings before fixed charges.......................               58,085
                                                                ---------
Fixed charges, as above.............................                  400

Preferred securities dividend.......................               38,690
                                                                   ------
Fixed charges including preferred securities
   dividends........................................               39,090
                                                                ---------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
and preferred securities dividend...................                 1.49
                                                                ---------
### Geology and water resources of the San Luis Valley, Colorado

By: Claude Ellsworth Siebenthal

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp240

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
No. 43136.

#### Protests 2536-K, etc., of Bamboo & Rattan Works et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
No. 56681.

protests 177551-K and 177580-K (New York).

#### Airport Clearance Service and Calvaire, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Antonio ORTIZ-RAMIREZ, Appellant.

No. 04-3163.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 15, 2005.

*730Christian A. Martinez, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Antonio Ortiz-Ramirez, Holton, KS, pro se.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Ortiz-Ramirez appeals the judgment the district court1 entered after finding him guilty of illegal reentry. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in admitting a Mexican military identification card without proper authentication and that, but for the identification card, the government would have been unable to prove that Ortiz-Ramirez was an alien.

Counsel’s argument fails. We find that there is sufficient competent evidence in the record—apart from the military identification card—to support the judgment, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (making it illegal for alien who has been deported to enter or be found in United States without Attorney General’s express consent), and we are confident that the district court would have reached the same result even if the card had been excluded. Thus, we conclude that admission of the card was, at most, harmless error. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a) (any error that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded); *Greater Kan. City Laborers Pension Fund v. Superior Gen. Contractors, Inc.,*104 F.3d 1050, 1057 (8th Cir.1997) (admission of incompetent evidence at bench trial will be deemed harmless if sufficient competent evidence exists in record to support judgment and it does not appear that district court was induced by incompetent evidence to make essential findings that it otherwise would not have made); *United States v. J.H.H.,*22 F.3d 821, 829-30 (8th Cir.1994) (admission of allegedly improperly admitted testimony at bench trial was harmless error because record contained ample evidence, without testimony, to support defendants’ convictions, and district court would have reached same result even if testimony had been excluded).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
April 25, 1951

No. 55504.

#### Donald G. Parrot *v.*United States,

protest 134892-K.

C. D. 1308. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
(Reap. Dec. 9025)

Entry Nos. 918955; 931625.

#### Meadows Wye & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided November 27, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Dovh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeals for reappraisement were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the cases were ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that — ■

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10113 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
KEVIN RAY PRENTICE , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 149

- 1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kevin Ray Prentice pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and

— pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)

— was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that

t he district court (1) plainly erred by treating his conviction for possession of a
controlled substance with intent to deliver , in violation of Texas Health and

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 9, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10113 Document: 00514465409 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2018No. 17

- 10113

2 Safety Code § 481.112, as a serious drug offense under the ACCA and (2) erred by treating his t wo Texas burglary convictions , in violation of Texas Penal Code § 30.02, as violent felonies under the ACCA.
As Prentice correctly acknowledges, his first argument is foreclosed by United States v. Vickers , 540 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2008), but he raises it t o preserve the issue for further review. With respect to Prentice ’s second issue, we recently concluded in United States v. Herrold , 883 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc) , that § 30.02(a) is “indivisible for the p urposes of categorical analysis”
and that § 30.02(a)(3) is “broader than the federal generic definition of burglary
encoded in the [ACCA] .” Id. at 520

- 41 (quotation at 520). Consequently, a Texas burglary conviction under § 30.02 is not a gene ric “burglary” under the
ACCA. See i d. at 537. As two of Prentice ’s predicate offenses w ere also under § 30.02, we VACATE and REMAND to the district court for resentencing in light of Herrold

. Case: 17-10113 Document: 00514465409 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2018
No. 42005.

#### Protests 386331-G, etc., of Saks & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bottles, boxes, incense burners, flaeons, whisky barrels, buckets, and atomizers chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445), *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), and *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) cited.
Exhibit 35.8



LOGO

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Year Ended December 31, 2016

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust,

Series 2016-GC36

Pursuant to
Section 3.06 of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the Servicing Agreement), I hereby attest that:



| | i. | A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the period has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the period and no default by the
Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Berkadia,



LOGO

Mark E. McCool

President

February 10, 2017

Inv. 187 Lib. A
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1215 

To provide for the exchange of land located in the Lowell National Historical 

Park, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2011 

Mr. KERRY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the exchange of land located in the Lowell 

National Historical Park, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lowell National His5 torical Park Land Exchange Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LAND EXCHANGE; LOANS. 

7 (a) LAND EXCHANGE.—Section 202 of Public Law 

8 95–290 (16 U.S.C. 410cc–22) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(d) LAND EXCHANGE.— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1215 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may ex2 change any Federal land or interest in Federal land 

3 within the boundaries of the park for any non-Fed4 eral land or interest in non-Federal land owned by 

5 the State of Massachusetts, the city of Lowell, or 

6 the University of Massachusetts Building Authority. 

7 ‘‘(2) CONDITIONS.—Except as provided in para8 graph (3), any exchange under this subsection shall 

9 be subject to— 

10 ‘‘(A) the laws (including regulations) and 

11 policies applicable to exchanges of land adminis12 tered by the National Park Service; and 

13 ‘‘(B) any other terms and conditions that 

14 the Secretary determines to be necessary. 

15 ‘‘(3) CASH EQUALIZATION.— 

16 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If facilities or infra17 structure required for the management and op18 eration of the park are located on the Federal 

19 land to be exchanged and the value of the Fed20 eral land and non-Federal land is not of equal 

21 value, the value shall be equalized by making a 

22 cash equalization payment to the Secretary. 

23 ‘‘(B) CASH EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS.— 

24 Any cash equalization payments received by the 

25 Secretary under subparagraph (A) shall be— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1215 IS

1 ‘‘(i) credited to a special account es2 tablished in the Treasury; and 

3 ‘‘(ii) made available, without further 

4 appropriation, for the purpose of replacing 

5 the facilities and infrastructure located on 

6 the Federal land. 

7 ‘‘(C) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall 

8 not be required to equalize the value of the 

9 Federal land and non-Federal land exchanged 

10 under this subsection if the non-Federal land 

11 exceeds the value of the Federal land.’’. 

12 (b) LOANS TO LOWELL DEVELOPMENT AND FINAN13 CIAL CORPORATION.—Section 303(a)(1) of Public Law 

14 95–290 (16 U.S.C. 410cc–33) is amended by striking 

15 ‘‘thirty-five years’’ and inserting ‘‘60 years’’. 

16 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

17 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

18 as are necessary to carry out the amendments made by 

19 section 2. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Work Injuries and Work-Injury Rates in Hospitals

              																	McElroy, Frank S. (Frank Shafer)					 and 	McCormack, George R. (George Robertson). 						*Work Injuries and Work-Injury Rates in Hospitals : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1219*,												Washington: 								U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 										February 1958,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4500,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
No. 40420.

#### Protests 920749-G, etc., of Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          41,493
<SECURITIES>                                    41,023
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                       310
<INVENTORY>                                         91
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,137
<PP&E>                                           7,941
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,121
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   125,142
<SALES>                                         31,691
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,691
<CGS>                                            9,742
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,711)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,711)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,802
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,711)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)


</TABLE>