alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JIM H. SHAW, Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 725, 25 CMR 229

No. 10,965

Decided February 21, 1958

*Major Frank C. Stetson*was on the brief for Appellant, Accused. *Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *First Lieutenant John E. Riecker*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

HomeR FeRguson, Judge:

The issues raised in this appeal are precisely the same as those found in United States v Finney, 8 USCMA 724, 25 CMR 228, decided this date. Our holding in that case is dispositive of the issues presented here.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for reference to á board of review. The board, in its discretion, may approve the lesser offense of absence without leave and reassess the sentence, or it may order a rehearing on the desertion charge.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part):

I concur in part and dissent in part for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Finney, 8 USCMA 724, *25*CMR 228.
#### United States *v.*Dean & Kite Co.

No. 6917.

Entry No. 579, etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, April 1946, etc.

Certified April 12, 1946, etc.

Entered at Cincinnati, Ohio, June 4, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 24, 1947)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Tompkins & Tompkins {J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated by and between the attorneys for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the court, that the prices at which such or similar merchandise covered by the Reappraisqment Appeals listed in the annexed schedule A, which is referred to and made a part of this stipulation, was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course *410of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such prices, the cost of all containers and coverings and all other costs, charges; and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, are the entered and appraised values in these cases.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there are no higher foreign values for the merchandise in suit.

> The reappraisements listed in said schedule A are submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On. tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe merchandise bere involved, and tbat sucb values are tbe entered and appraised values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
• • » " ?

8£F:TCA7/1 3 U S DtfilBicif l o f

T*i^M^Oil*Uu)> • 400Se*«»a}8tR«f$ W Roab.64a 3 Wadnqg^pirDX h 2059 0 . 

### US A OMrSeMadin w TbC ' Mbbo y^

T^afM%.$Syi l ,^|k*fidlq B looA - Cvlts n Jusfb f ODnfrap- tat flw Ctovtiiwiaa ro T Aat«f t akTBitlMd * w & teiwivimtertopl y Un M 8ta( w -of

- •b-Miiie o to ctp«« a ^

Mwiaa i Rii ^

onft e aaitei(n£Bg*) M d » UafM a Stelet o f Antiint . r Aee^B«DlMadi%1{wapRKnB9«fjDare(nakientioa . .HbDOttdUeMm '
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 130405 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 130405 COA: 262394 Genesee CC: 01-007978-FC TERRANCE MICHAEL McKELLER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to app eal the January 6, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0522 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.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
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 Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 (the Report), I, Craig A. Knock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |                                                                                                                                         
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Craig A. Knock                                                                                                                      
|                  |  | Craig A. Knock Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer Principal Accounting Officer Iowa
Telecommunications Services, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26787-26788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

[[Page 26788]]


ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 
2, notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige 
National Quality Award will meet Tuesday, June 5, 2007. The Judges 
Panel is composed of twelve members prominent in the fields of quality, 
innovation, and performance excellence and appointed by the Secretary 
of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Judging 
process and Judging process changes for 2007; the Judges' survey of 
applicants; and the Judges' mentoring process. The applications under 
review by Judges contain trade secrets and proprietary commercial 
information submitted to the Government in confidence.

DATES: The meeting will convene June 5, 2007 at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 
4:30 p.m. on June 5, 2007. The entire meeting will be closed.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Administration Building, Lecture Room A, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National 
Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975-2361.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary for Administration, 
with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on 
December 27, 2005, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed 
pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409. The meeting, which involves 
examination of Award applicant data from U.S. companies and other 
organizations and a discussion of this data as compared to the Award 
criteria in order to recommend Award recipients, may be closed to the 
public in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States 
Code, because the meetings are likely to disclose trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is 
privileged or confidential.

    Dated: May 4, 2007.
James M. Turner,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E7-9145 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21.1

                          UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC.
                                 SUBSIDIARIES


SUBSIDIARY                                           STATE OF INCORPORATION
 1.  Fast Towing, Inc.                               Arizona
 2.  Arri Brothers, Inc. d/b/a A&A Towing*           California
 3.  Auto Service Center                             California
 4.  Bill & Wags, Inc.*                              California
 5.  URS Midwest, Inc.                               Delaware
 6.  URS Northeast, Inc.                             Delaware
 7.  URS of Tennessee, Inc.                          Delaware
 8.  URS Southeast, Inc.                             Delaware
 9.  URS Southwest, Inc.                             Delaware
10. URS West, Inc.                                   Delaware
11. Environmental Auto Removal, Inc.                 Illinois
12. E & R Towing and Garage, Inc.                    Illinois
13. City Towing, Inc. d/b/a Quality Towing           Nevada
14.  Ken Lehman Enterprises, Inc.                    Nevada
15. El Paso Towing, Inc.                             Texas
16. Garry's Wrecker Service, Inc.                    Texas
17. Rouse's Body Shop, Inc.                          Washington

* a wholly-owned subsidiary of URS West, Inc.
**Exhibit 10.2**On May 27, 2005, the joint leadership resources committee of the boards of directors of NortelNetworks Corporation and Nortel Networks Limited and the independent members of the boards ofdirectors of Nortel Networks Corporation and Nortel Networks Limited approved the crediting ofinterest on the special pension benefits previously approved for Mr. Owens over the accumulationperiod of the special pension benefit (the first five years of Mr. Owens employment). The interestwill be credited from the effective date of the applicable special pension benefit. As a result,if Mr. Owens retires after completing five years of employment, he will receive a revised totalmonthly pension benefit of $139,370 payable over the five years following his retirement.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7412

RYAN O. DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-1044-2) Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 20, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryan O. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Ryan O. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &Supp. 1999). Davis’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Davis failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Davis has waived appellate review byfailing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Consent(Director)


                                        SHOTGUN ENERGY CORPORATION                  EXHIBIT 10-01

(the “Company”)

CONSENT TO ACT AS DIRECTOR

I hereby consent to act as a director, secretary, treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and acknowledge that I am not disqualified to become or to act as a director under Chapter 78 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

I hereby confirm that:

1

I am not under the age of 18 years;

2

I have not been found by a court, in the United States of America or elsewhere, to be incapable of managing my own affairs;

3

I am not an undischarged bankrupt; and

4

I have not been convicted in or out of Nevada of an offence in connection with the promotion, formation or management of a corporation or unincorporated business, or of an offence involving fraud.




In addition, the undersigned hereby consents to the holding of any meeting of the directors or of a committee of the directors of the Company by means of such telephonic, electronic or other communication facility, as permit all persons participating in the subject meetings to communicate adequately with each other.




This consent shall continue in effect from year to year so long as the undersigned is re-elected to the board of directors, provided that in the event that the undersigned revokes this consent or resigns from the board of directors, this consent shall cease to have effect from the date of receipt in writing by the Company of such revocation or resignation, as the case may be, or, if the latter, the effective date of such resignation.

DIRECTORS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT LIABILITIES. THE PERSON SIGNING THIS CONSENT SHOULD OBTAIN INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE.

		
	Dated

	January 30, 2008


	Print name

	Marc Scheive


	Address

	7811 Eoul Louis-H

LaFontaine, Bureau 102

Anjou, Quebec, H1K 4E4


	Signature

	/s/: Marc Scheive
No. 96-1307.

#### Duncan, Warden *v.*Baylor.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Hupp’s motion

for oral argument is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: PAUL HUPP,

 Debtor.

PAUL HUPP,

 Appellant,

 v.

EDUCATIONAL CREDIT

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

 Appellee,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Intervenor - Appellee.

No. 08-56403

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00414-H-RBB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

FILED

JUN 07 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-56403

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Paul Hupp appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the

bankruptcy court’s order after a bench trial regarding discharge of Hupp’s student

loans under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(d). We review de novo, Rifino v. United States (In re Rifino), 245 F.3d

1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly determined that Hupp failed to establish that 

his current inability to repay the loans was likely to persist for a significant portion

of the repayment period and that he had made a good faith effort to repay the loans. 

See id. at 1087 (outlining three-prong test for debtor to establish undue hardship

under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)); see also, Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Mason (In re

Mason), 464 F.3d 878, 885 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that debtor had not met his

burden of establishing good faith in attempting to pay back his loans because he

had not maximized his income and had not made adequate efforts to obtain

full-time employment despite his educational background).

Hupp’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                        ADVANCED ACCESSORY SYSTEMS, LLC
           EXHIBIT 12.1 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIOS -
                           FIXED CHARGE COVERAGE RATIO
              FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000, 1999 AND 1998
                          (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                DECEMBER 31,
                                                                                   2000             1999             1998
                                                                                 -------          -------          -------
<S>                                                                              <C>              <C>              <C>
Pre-tax income from
  continuing operations ..........................................               $ 7,515          $ 5,395          $   813
                                                                                 -------          -------          -------

Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense and amortization
   of debt discount and premium on all
   indebtedness ..................................................                17,950           17,453           18,633

Rentals (1) ......................................................                 2,711            1,390            1,317
                                                                                 -------          -------          -------

Total fixed charges ..............................................                20,661           18,843           19,950
                                                                                 -------          -------          -------

Earnings before income taxes,
  minority interest and fixed charges ............................               $28,176          $24,238          $20,763
                                                                                 =======          =======          =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ...............................                 1.36x            1.29x            1.04x
                                                                                 =======          =======          =======
</TABLE>

----------

(1)  Amount included in fixed charges for rentals is considered by management to
     be a reasonable approximation of the interest factor.




                                       59
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1986]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
(SAMHSA); Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
following meeting of the SAMHSA Special Emphasis Panel II in February.
    A summary of the meeting may be obtained from: Ms. Dee Herman, 
Committee Management Liaison, SAMHSA Office of Extramural Activities 
Review, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17-89, Rockville, Maryland 20857. 
Telephone: (301) 443-4783.
    Substantive program information may be obtained from the individual 
named as Contact for the meeting listed below.
    The meeting will include the review, discussion and evaluation of 
individual contract proposals. These discussions could reveal personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals and 
confidential and financial information about an individual's proposal. 
The discussion may also reveal information about procurement activities 
exempt from disclosure by statute and trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information obtained from a person and privileged and 
confidential. Accordingly, the meeting is concerned with matters exempt 
from mandatory disclosure in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (3), (4), and (6) 
and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec. 10(d).

    Committee Name: SAMHSA Special Emphasis Panel II.
    Meeting Date: February 3, 1997.
    Place: DoubleTree Hotel, Randolph Room, 1750 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Closed: February 3, 1997 9:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
    Contact: Ferdinand Hui, Ph.D., Room 17-89, Parklawn Building, 
Telephone: (301) 443-9919 and FAX: (301) 443-3437.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

    Dated: January 22, 1997.
Jeri Lipov,
Committee Management Officer, SAMHSA.
[FR Doc. 97-1986 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
Amendment to Harpal Gill Offer Letter, dated February 14, 2007



 Exhibit 10.3.2 
  
 February 14, 2007 
  
 Dr. Harpal Gill 
 650 Pickering Ave. 
 Fremont, CA 
 USA 
  

	 Ref:
	 	 Amendment to the offer letter dated April 29th, 2005 


  
 Dear Harpal, 
  
 Amendment
dated 2/14/2007: The paragraph in your initial offer letter regarding severance will be changed as follows. The changes are underlined. 
  
 Employment with FUSA is on an at-will basis. Thus you are free to terminate your employment for any reason at any time with our without prior notice.
Similarly, FUSA can terminate the employment relationship with or without cause or notice. However, in the event your employment is terminated without good cause, you will receive a severance equal to 12 months of present base salary,
medical coverage for the same period plus any earned bonus. 
  
 All other terms and conditions of your employment will remain the same as documented in the initial
offer letter dated 29th of April, 2005 and subsequent documented changes in salary, stock options and other allowances. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  
 Tom Mitchell 
 Chairman & CEO