alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mackey R. WATTS, II, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-10724.

D.C. No. CR. S 01-64 LKK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

*249Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mackey R. Watts, II, pled guilty to a one count indictment of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

“We review a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” *United States v. Summers,*268 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.2001), *cert, denied,*— U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1182,152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002); *see also United States v. $109,179 in United States Currency,*228 F.3d 1080, 1083-84 (9th Cir.2000). “We determine whether there was a founded suspicion for a pat-down search based on a totality of the circumstances.” *United States v. Salas,*879 F.2d 530, 535 (9th Cir.1989). When an officer reasonably believes that “the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at a close range is armed,” he may conduct a limited search of the individual for weapons. *Adams v. Williams,*407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); *see also Terry v. Ohio,*392 U.S. 1, 28, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); *United States v. Post,*607 F.2d 847, 851 (9th Cir.1979).

Watts argues that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence because the pat-down, which resulted in the discovery and seizure of the firearm on his waistband, was not reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. We disagree. The record demonstrates that the officers “had reasonable suspicion to believe that [Watts] was involved in a narcotics operation, and thus that he might be armed.” *$109,179 in United States Currency,*228 F.3d at 1084; *see also Salas,*879 F.2d at 535; *Post,*607 F.2d at 851. Thus, the district court did not err.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as 9th Cir. R. 36-3 may provide.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3292]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 1927]


Pacificorp; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project 
Operation

February 5, 1997.
    On January 30, 1995, Pacificorp, licensee for the North Umpqua 
Project No. 1927, filed an application for a new or subsequent license 
pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's 
regulations thereunder. Project No. 1927 is located on the North Umpqua 
River in Douglas County, Oregon.
    The license for Project No. 1927 was issued for a period ending 
January 29, 1997. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), 
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue 
from year to year an annual license to the then licensee under the 
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is 
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in Section 
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior 
license waived the applicability of Section 15 of the FPA, then, based 
on Section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), 
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project 
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to Section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 1927 is issued to 
Pacificorp for a period effective January 30, 1997, through January 29, 
1998, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other 
disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new 
license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before January 
29, 1998, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an 
annual license under Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed 
automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless 
the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to Section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Pacificorp is authorized to continue operation of the 
North Umpqua Project No. 1927 until such time as the Commission acts on 
its application for subsequent license.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3292 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7404

JOHN MATTHEWS GRANT, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PAGE TRUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CA-02-644-3)

Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: March 24, 2004

Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney

General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Matthews Grant, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Grant has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-31162 Summary Calendar

JOSEFA GOMEZ Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(USDC No. 04-CV-2403) Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Josefa Gomez filed applications for supplemental social security benefits in 1984 and 1985; both applications were denied. In 1999, Gomez sought to reopen the 1984 and 1985 applications. The Commissioner denied Gomez’s request. Gomez filed an action in district court seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s adverse decision. The district court dismissed her case for lack of jurisdiction. Gomez appeals. We affirm.1See, e.g., Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108-09 (1977); Thibodeauxby

Thibodeaux v. Bowen, 819 F.2d 76, 80 (5th Cir. 1987) (“[A] federal court does not have jurisdiction to review the non-constitutional bases of the Secretary’s decision on a petition to reopen.”). 2 Absent a colorable constitutional claim, we lack jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 205 over the Commissioner’s refusal to reopen a prior decision.1 Gomez argues that her mental impairment prevented her from understanding and pursuing her right to appeal the denial of her 1984 and 1985 applications. Her evidence of a mental impairment falls short. First, Gomez submitted an “earnings statement” indicating that she did not work between 1984 and 1990. While it could be that Gomez did not work because of her mental impairment, the earnings statement alone does not prove this proposition. Second, Gomez submitted a 1998 letter from her current doctor who stated that a different doctor diagnosed Gomez with borderline personality disorder and dissociative disorder in 1994. That Gomez was mentally impaired in 1994 hardly suggests that she was mentally impaired in 1984 or 1985. Third, Gomez submitted a 1999 letter from her current doctor stating that when Gomez first visited a hospital in 1984, she had been unable to work for a year. Again, this evidence is insufficient to establish that Gomez was mentally impaired, as there are many reasons why she was not working prior to 1984. Finally, the 1999 letter referred to an April 1984 psychological examination, which found that Gomez’s “highest level of adaptive functioning [was] level 5,” which results in “a moderate amount of impairment in both social3

relations and occupational functioning.” This too is insufficient to establish a constitutional claim, as there is no explanation of what “level 5” means or whether that condition would prevent Gomez from understanding that she needed to timely appeal the denial of her benefits applications. AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - DILUTED
(in thousands of dollars or shares except per share amounts)
Twelve Weeks Ended May 1, 1999 and May 2, 1998
<CAPTION>
                                           Twelve Weeks Ended
                                         ----------------------
                                           May 1,       May 2,
                                            1999        1998
                                         ---------    ---------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>
Diluted:
  Net earnings (loss) applicable to
    common shares                        $     74     $   (506)
                                         =========    =========
Shares:
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding              17,763       17,536
  Shares issuable under employee
    stock plans - weighted average             34           --*
  Dilutive effect of exercise of
    certain stock options                     228           --*
  Less:  Treasury stock - weighted
    average                                (7,864)      (7,622)
                                         ---------    ---------
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                            10,161        9,914
                                         =========    =========
Net earnings (loss) per common and
    common equivalent shares             $   0.01     $  (0.05)
                                         =========    =========

<FN>
* The dilutive effect of 36,498 stock options as well as
  280,053 shares issuable under employee stock plans was not
  considered as the effect is antidilutive.

</FN>
</TABLE>





                              21
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 INTERDOM, CORP. (the "Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ended  April 30,  2011 as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition and   results of operations  of the Company.



Date: June 9, 2011





/s/ Igor Rumiantsev

__________________________

Igor Rumiantsev, President,

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF

COURIER CORPORATION DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM

 

A.                                   The Terms andConditions of the Courier Corporation Deferred Compensation Program, asestablished on November 6, 1997, are hereby amended as follows:

 

1.               Paragraph 1 ishereby amended by adding the following at the end thereof:

 

“EffectiveJanuary 1, 2008, Peter M. Folger, the Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Corporation, shall also be a Participant.”

 

2.               Paragraph 1 ishereby amended by deleting the following sentence:

 

“Effective January 1, 2001, thePresident of Dover Publications, Inc. and of Transfolio Express, Inc.shall also be a Participant.”

 

3.               Paragraph 3(c) ishereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

“Special Award to Mr. Peter Folger.  In the case of the Participant Mr. PeterFolger, he shall be eligible for an annual award under Section 3(b) forcalendar year 2007 and each year thereafter subject to the terms of the Programas if he had been participating in the Program effective as of January 1,2007.”

 

4.               The effective date of thisFifth Amendment shall be January 1, 2008.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, This Fifth Amendment has been signed and sealed for and onbehalf of the Company by its duly authorized officer this 6th day of Dec.,2007.

 

COURIERCORPORATION

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/  D. L. Sawyer |
|--------|--------|-------------------|
|   | Name:  | Diana  L. Sawyer  |
|   | Title: | Vice  President   |

 

----
No. 00-7571.

#### Caranto *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS • 1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. • WASHINGTON, D.C. • 20220 • 

FOR RELEASE AT 3:00 p.m. Contact: Jon Murchinson 202) 622-2960

August 1, 1994

TREASURY ANNOUNCES MARKET BORROWING ESTIMATES

The Treasury Department on Monday announced that its net market 

borrowing for the July-September 1994 quarter is estimated to be $45 billion, with a 

$40 billion cash balance on September 30. The Treasury also announced that its net 

market borrowing for the October-December 1994 quarter is estimated to be in a 

range of $45 billion to $50 billion, with a $30 billion cash balance at the end of 

December.

In the quarterly announcement of its borrowing needs on May 2, 1994, the 

Treasury estimated net market borrowing during the July-September 1994 quarter 

to be in a range of $55 billion to $60 billion, assuming a $40 billion cash balance 

on September 30. The $51 billion June 30 cash balance -- compared with $40 

billion that had been estimated in May -accounts for most of the difference 

between the May and August market borrowing estimates for the July-September 

quarter.

Actual net market borrowing in the quarter ended June 30, 1994 was $8.1 

billion, while the end-of-quarter cash balance was $51.0 billion. On May 2, the 

Treasury had estimated net market borrowing for the April-June quarter to be $8 

billion, with a $40 billion cash balance on June 30. The higher-than-expected endof-June cash balance reflected a reduction in the cash deficit.

LB-985
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CARLOS ANTWAN WALKER, a/k/a Twan, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District 

Judge. (6:06-cr-00007-nkm) 

Submitted: August 6, 2009 Decided: August 17, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Darren S. Haley, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. 

Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Reed, Third-Year 

Practice Law Student, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Carlos Antwan Walker appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Walker, 

No. 6:06-cr-00007-nkm (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 2008). 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. 

AFFIRMED
#### Fredric G. HAYES, Liquidator of Simon, Trice & Mouton, Partnership, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phil TRICE, Defendant-Appellant. J. Minos Simon and John Rixie Mouton, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2967A.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 12, 1970.

Calvin E. Hardin, Jr., Baton Rouge, Ronald J. Gossen, Lafayette, for- plaintiff-appellant.

Fredric G. Hayes, Lafayette, for liquidator-appellant.

J. Minos Simon, John Rixie Mouton, Lafayette, for defendants-appellees.

Before FRUGÉ, SAVOY, and HOOD, JJ-

FRUGÉ, Judge.

The issues of the present suit are disposed of in Trice v. Simon, 233 So.2d 609, a companion appeal rendered by us this date. For the reasons stated in the companion appeal, the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, at plaintiff-appellee’s cost.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 12

                             COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (Dollar Amounts in Thousands)
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Three Months Ended
                                                March 31,                                  Year Ended December 31,
                                                ---------                                  -----------------------
                                           2001          2000          2000          1999         1998         1997          1996
                                           ----          ----          ----          ----         ----         ----          ----

<S>                                     <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>         <C>           <C>
Interest Expense                        $  25,100     $  18,300     $ 100,300     $  55,200     $101,900    $  90,400     $ 142,100

Capitalized Interest                          375         1,200         3,946            --           --           --            --

Estimated Interest Portion of
    Rent Expense                            4,574         3,827        15,614        13,948       12,352       10,864        10,035
                                        ---------     ---------     ---------     ---------     --------    ---------     ---------

Fixed Charges                           $  30,049     $  23,327     $ 119,860     $  69,148     $114,252    $ 101,264     $ 152,135
                                        =========     =========     =========     =========     ========    =========     =========
Income From Continuing
    Operations Before Income Taxes      $  86,800     $ 129,100     $ 549,900     $ 518,600     $523,600    $ 483,200     $ 470,700

Add: Fixed Charges                         29,674        22,127       115,914        69,148      114,252      101,264       152,135

       Dividends From Less Than
       50% Owned Companies                     --            --            --            --           --           --           287

Less:  Equity in (Earnings) / Losses
       of Less Than 50% Owned
       Companies                             (702)       (1,289)       (3,367)       (1,069)         595         (320)       (1,609)
                                        ---------     ---------     ---------     ---------     --------    ---------     ---------

Earnings Before Fixed Charges           $ 115,772     $ 149,938     $ 662,447     $ 586,679     $638,447    $ 584,144     $ 621,513
                                        =========     =========     =========     =========     ========    =========     =========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges           3.9x          6.4x          5.5x          8.5x         5.6x         5.8x          4.1x
</TABLE>


                                      -15-