alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_____________ No. 95-3356ND

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of North Dakota. * Floyd Wesley Shulze, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: February 13, 1997 Filed: March 6, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________
PER CURIAM.
Floyd Wesley Shulze appeals his weapons-related convictions an d guidelines sentence. Relying on United States v. Lopez , 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), Shulze raises a Commerce Clause challeng e to the constitutionality of the interstate weapons charges. Because the provisions under whic h Shulze was charged contain an interstate commerce requirement, Shulze’ s argument is foreclosed by our recent opinions. See United States v. Bates , 77 F.3d 1101, 1103-04 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 215 (1996) ; United States v. Shelton , 66 F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), cert. den ied , 116 S. Ct. 1364 (1996). Shulze’s contention that th e district court improperly considered predicate f elonies for which Shulze’s civil rights had been restored is similarly foreclosed by our decision in United St ates v. Dockter , 58 F.3d 1284, 1289-91 (8th Cir. 1995), cert . denied sub nom. , Shul ze v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 932 (1996). We also reject Shulze’s contention that the enhancement to his sentence for crimes committed while he was on

### -2-

bail violates double jeopardy. See United States v. Lincoln , 956 F.2 d 1465, 147 3 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Thomas , 930 F.2d 12, 13-1 4 (8th Cir. 1991). Finally, Shulze challenges the sufficiency of th e evidence to support his conviction for bartering stolen weapons. Contrary to Shu lze’s view, there is overpowering evidence that Shulze bartere d stolen weapons for cocaine. See United States v. Koskela , 86 F.3d 122, 12 6 (8th Cir. 1996) (evidence against Shulze charact erized as “overwhelming”). The co urt declines to consider the supplemental citations raised i n Shulze’s correspondence with his counsel. This matter is best presented in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We thus affirm Shulze’s convictions and sentence.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result and in the judgment in this case.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 99.1

SCHOOL SPECIALTY, INC.

SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

FISCAL YEARS ENDED APRIL 30, 2011, APRIL 24, 2010 AND APRIL 25, 2009



|                                |  |                |  |                              |           |  |                             |  |           |                         |  |  |            |      |  |                        |            |   |      |  |           |  |  |               
|------------------------------- |  | -------------- |  | ---------------------------- | --------- |  | --------------------------- |  | --------- | ----------------------- |  |  | ---------- | ---- |  | ---------------------- | ---------- | - | ---- |  | --------- |  |  | --------------
|Description                     |  | Date           |  | Balance atBeginningof Period |           |  | Charged toCosts andExpenses |  |           | Charged toOtherAccounts |  |  | Deductions |      |  | Balance atEnd ofPeriod |            |   | Date
|Allowance for doubtful accounts |  | April 26, 2008 |  |                              | 4,235,000 |  |                             |  | 1,411,000 |                         |  |  |           |      |  |                        | (1,314,000 | ) |      |  | 4,332,000 |  |  | April 25, 2009
|                                |  | April 25, 2009 |  |                              | 4,332,000 |  |                             |  | 597,000   |                         |  |  | (1,398,000 | )(a) |  |                        | (1,427,000 | ) |      |  | 2,104,000 |  |  | April 24, 2010
|                                |  | April 24, 2010 |  |                              | 2,104,000 |  |                             |  | 329,000   |                         |  |  |           |      |  |                        | (482,000   | ) |      |  | 1,951,000 |  |  | April 30, 2011
|                                |  |                |  |                              |           |  |                            
|Restructuring reserve           |  | April 26, 2008 |  |                              |          |  |                             |  | 3,912,000 |                         |  |  |           |      |  |                        | (2,467,000 | ) |      |  | 1,445,000 |  |  | April 25, 2009
|                                |  | April 25, 2009 |  |                              | 1,445,000 |  |                             |  | 4,010,000 |                         |  |  |           |      |  |                        | (3,929,000 | ) |      |  | 1,526,000 |  |  | April 24, 2010
|                                |  | April 24, 2010 |  |                              | 1,526,000 |  |                             |  | 1,985,000 |                         |  |  |           |      |  |                        | (3,150,000 | ) |      |  | 361,000   |  |  | April 30, 2011



|(a) | Represents the allowance for doubtful accounts reduced as a result of the divestiture of the majority of the School Specialty Publishing business unit.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSummary of the 2017 Blockage Test in the 10- by 10-Foot Supersonic Wind TunnelA limited blockage study was performed in December 2017 to explore exceeding the current published blockage curve for the NASA Glenn 10- by 10-Foot (10x10) Supersonic Wind Tunnel (SWT) at two discrete operating conditions. For the two points tested, the tunnel was found to start outside of the published starting limitations curve, above a certain threshold of Mach and stagnation pressure. Blockage theory was reviewed to further understand these results. In order to gain a firm understanding of the aerodynamic effects a more-detailed follow up blockage study is recommended.Document ID20180007353Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsPastor-Barsi, Christine*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Peters, Christopher*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Vyas, Manan*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 30, 2018Publication DateOctober 1, 2018Subject CategoryResearch And Support Facilities (Air)AerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2018-220016E-19621GRC-E-DAA-TN62340Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 725017.02.03.02.03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsTunnel Start10x10 Supersonic Wind TunnelAvailable DownloadsNameType20180007353.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,996
<INVENTORY>                                      3,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,931
<PP&E>                                         271,723
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,056
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 395,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,108
<BONDS>                                        120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   395,036
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               272,478
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  271,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    770
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,149
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                770
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (379)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 65792.

#### American Home Products Corp. (American Home Foods Division), and Schmidt Pritchard & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/29021(G) (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *J.*H. *Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 13.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

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 Annual Report of Desert Sun Mining Corporation, a company organized under the Canada Business Corporations Act (the "Company") on Form 20-FT for the transitional period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Stephen Woodhead, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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/ Stephen Woodhead_____________________

Stephen Woodhead, Chief Financial Officer





Date: November 10, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-921]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 20, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community 
Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Heritage Bancorp, Inc. Mason, Tennessee; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 50 percent of Fayette Bancorp, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly acquire Mason Bancorp, Inc., and Bank of Mason, all 
of Mason, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 18, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-921 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Case No. 14,652.

#### UNITED STATES v. BROCKIUS.

[3 Wash C. C. 99.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1811.

Witness — Competency — Conviction — Infamous Offexof.

1. A person who had been convicted in a court of this state, of an assault and battery with intent to murder, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. is a competent witness.

[Cited in Boyd v. State (Tenu.) 29 S. W. 901; Com. v Dame. 8 Cush. 3S5.]

2. If ineompeteney, produced by the conviction of a witness, depends on the punishment, and not the nature of the offence, yet where an infamous punishment, in the discretion of the court, is not added, there is no disqualification, because it might have been inflicted. Fine aud imprisonment is- not an infamous punishment.

[Cited in U S \. Biock. Case No. 14.009.]

¿Cited in Stale v. Nolan (R. I.) 10 Atl. 482.]

Indictment tor smuggling. One of the witnesses, in favour of the prosecution, was objected to. on tlie ground, that he had been convicted of an assault aud battery witli intent to murder, aud had been sentenced to pay a fine, and to six months imprisonment, as appeared h.v the record produced in evidence.

Mr. Levy, for defendant,

read the following cases: Co. Lift. 6. 13: Kel. 37. 38; 2 Wils. 18: 2 Bac. At»-. 583; 4 Bl. Comm. 217; 1 East, P. C. 407.

Mr. Dallas read MeNal. Ev. 206 et seq.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bnshrod Washington. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

.BY THE COURT:

The punishment of this offence at common law, is fine and imprisonment. and frequently the pillory is added; but it seems to be in the discretion of the court. In lien of tlie common law punishment of branding, whipping, and pillory, the Penal Code of this state, has substituted confinement and hard labour. Now, even if the ineompeteney produced by conviction, depended on the punishment, instead of the nature of the offence: where the infamous punishment forms no part of the sentence, there would be no disqualification, because it might have been inflicted. In this ease, the punishment by fine ami imprisonment, is not to be considered as an infamous punishment, so as to render the witness incompetent.

The case was left to the jury, on the evidence. who found the defendant not guilty.’

Quere per WASHINGTON, whether, in any ease, the statutory punishment, by confinement to hard labour, will destroy the competency of the witness, ifnless the crime is infamous?
Date: June 24 , 20 1 1

Subject: Telephone Call with Valspar Regulatory Affairs Manager

– Wood Coatings on the

Availability and Use of Low

- and No

- Formaldehyde Coatings

Woo d Furniture Manufacturing RTR RTI Project No. 021 2783.013

From: Dave Reeves , RTI In ternational

To: Nick Swanson

OAQPS/SPPD/

NR G (D243

- 02) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

I. Contact

Telephone calls were made to Valspar to inquire on the use and market availability of low

and no

- formaldehyde coatings for the U.S. wood furniture manufacturing industry. I left a message with Bill Hale, but ended up talking with :

M s

. Sherry Stookey Regulatory Affairs Manager

- Wood Coatings High Point, NC (336) 80 2

– 4305

II. Summary of Information

M s

. Stookey wa s aware of the recent RTR proposal for the wood furniture manufacturing industry and commented that Valspar is th e coating supplier for Kitchen K ompact, a high volume cabinet manufacturer. Ms. Stookey stated that Valspar does have a low

- formaldehyde conve rsion varnish, but it has only been lab

- tested and is not “commercialized.” She further stated that Valspar has one recent international customer that is now using the conversion varnish, but it has

not made its ’ way into the U.S. marketplace and there is no commercial experience related to the

varnish performance requirements.

M s

. Stookey said that changing to waterborne or water

- based formulations will require a big technology shift for facilities with flat (panel) line production. Such changes will likely involve coating line reconfigurations and adding drying ovens which will require significant capital investment. When asked about coating costs, Ms. Stookey commented that those costs would be “higher to significantly higher.”

I also asked about the rest of the furniture industry (other than flat panel cabinetry) and Ms. Stookey stated formaldehyde contents are very low in all other coatings used in the other segments of the furniture industry and is basically a “non

- issue”. Ms. Stookey commented that UV technology is also an option and Valspar manufactures those coatings as well; with significant capital investment required for UV application equipment and coating lines.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of Blue River Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Russell Breeden III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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 results of operations of the
Company.

         This certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed for any other purpose.

Russell Breeden, III
Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2004
# C_2017300EN.01003802.xml

| 11.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/38

---

Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)

(Case T-748/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 300/48)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 27, 2009

0518 

# Order

May 27, 2009

138320

ARCHIE A. VAN ELSLANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138320 COA: 274966 Oakland CC: 2003-051583-CZ THOMAS SEBOLD & ASSOCIATES, INC., DANIEL S. FOLLIS, and MARY ELIZABETH FOLLIS, Defendants-Appellees, and

HOME INSPECTORS NORTH, INC. and LINCOLN WOOD PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 12, 2015

NO. 03-14-00671-CV

Stephen M. Daniels, Appellant

v.

Tony R. Bertolino, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, FIELD, AND CARROLL

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE CARROLL

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 21, 2014. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.

* Before Jimmy Carroll, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. 

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 21, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00047

- CV

City of Rice, Texas, Appellant

v.

Texas Commission on Law Enforcement O fficer Standards and Education; Timothy A. Braaten, in his Official Capacit y as Executive Director of Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education; and Nicole C. McMahan, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s

judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered tha t the judgment of the trial

court is in all things affirmed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant pay all costs relating

to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified below for

observance.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.5

Schedule to Huttig promissory note in favor of certain lenders.


Lender                                                     Principal sum


First Union National Bank                                  $15,000,000

The Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank, Ltd.                             $10,000,000

The Bank of New York                                       $15,000,000

Mercantile Bank National Association                       $15,000,000