alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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.

** 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11308 Summary Calendar

WILLIE SHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JAIME QUINTANILLA, Captain; SAMUEL KAMER, Correctional Officer III, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97-CV-226

- - - - - - - - - - June 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Willie Sherman, Texas state prisoner # 593654, challenges the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915 dismissal as frivolous of his pro se , in forma pauperis civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sherman contends that the district court abused its discretion in determining that his claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey
. **No. 97-11308 -2- As to Sherman’s claims that false disciplinary proceedings were filed against him because he is an African-American and that the disciplinary hearing procedures violated his due-process rights, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering dismissal pursuant to Heck
. See Edwards v. Balisok , 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1587-89 (1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Sherman’s retaliation claim under Heck
. See Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 516 U.S. 1084 (1996). Accordingly, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings in connection with Sherman’s claim that disciplinary proceedings were brought against him in retaliation for his filing grievances. Sherman additionally argues that the district court erred in ordering dismissal without first considering the question whether Kamer and Quintanilla were entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Contrary to Sherman’s assertions, Boyd does not require a threshold inquiry into qualified immunity; instead, it states that a district court should, when feasible, consider the application of absolute immunity prior to conducting a Heck analysis. Id. Sherman has not demonstrated that such an inquiry was feasible in this case. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 03, 2018.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D 17-1479

Lower Tribunal Nos. 17-80-A-K & 17-165-A-K

________________



### Charles Richard Rhines

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones

, Judge.

Charles Richard Rhines, in proper person

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LUCK, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, C.J.

The defendant below, Charles Richard Rhines, appeals his convictions and

sentences entered following his plea of nolo contendere, arguing that his plea wasinvoluntarily entered. As the defendant did not file a motion to withdraw his plea

in the lower tribunal, asserting that his plea was involuntary, we are without

jurisdiction to entertain this issue on direct appeal. See Fla. R. App. P.

9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c) (stating that a defendant who pleads nolo contendere may

directly appeal based on the ground that his plea is involuntary if the ground of

involuntary plea is preserved by a motion to withdraw plea). Accordingly, we

dismiss the defendant’s appeal but do so without prejudice to allow the defendant

to raise this issue in a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(a)(5). See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(a)(5) (stating

that a defendant who enters a plea of nolo contendere may file a motion for

postconviction relief on the ground that the plea was involuntary).

Dismissed without prejudice.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Agrilink
Foods, Inc. Form 10-Q for the period ended March 27, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statement.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                           1000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUN-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                       7,464
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              106,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                326,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           484,054
<PP&E>                                     423,788
<DEPRECIATION>                              88,061
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,179,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      271,501
<BONDS>                                    200,015
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 170,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,179,146
<SALES>                                    911,467
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           911,467
<CGS>                                      634,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              634,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           159,065
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          51,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             66,436
<INCOME-TAX>                                26,601
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         39,835
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             16,366
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                23,469
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>            5

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               98298
<SECURITIES>                                      35123978
<RECEIVABLES>                                         8541
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         100000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  35591436
<PP&E>                                             1230325
<DEPRECIATION>                                      875488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    35990263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              6700742
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                             53097
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                        29236424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      35990263
<SALES>                                             211559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    717736
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       206594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    370707
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   45082
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      95353
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1360
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  93993
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         93993
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.02


</TABLE>
#### Tom W. RODGERS; Juan P. Lewis, Appellants, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Department of Safety Division of Corrections; G. Hughes, C.O.; Unknown Kevers, C.O.; Unknown Clemons, C.O.; Unknown Clemens, Capt.; Unknown Casey, Capt.; Unknown Stewart, Lt.; Alice Pollard-Buckingham; Unknown Roberts, Lt., Appellees.

No. 02-2207.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 6, 2002.

Filed Aug. 22, 2002.

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Tom Rodgers appeals from the district court’s1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.2 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr. Rodgers’s complaint without prejudice after he failed to comply with a court order. *See*Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b); *Edgington v. Missouri Dep’t of Corr.,*52 F.3d 777, 779-80 (8th Cir.1995). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. Juan Lewis did not submit a timely notice of appeal, and therefore is not a proper appellant.
#### George GARCIA, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43703.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 31, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 559.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 68325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34054]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission For OMB Review; Comment Request for the Revised 
Information Collection; RI 30-10

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management will submit to the Office of Management and Budget 
a request for a revised information collection. RI 30-10, Disabled 
Dependent Questionnaire, is used to collect sufficient information 
about the medical condition and earning capacity for OPM to be able to 
determine whether a disabled adult child is eligible for health 
benefits coverage and/or survivor annuity payments under the Civil 
Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees Retirement System.
    Approximately 2,500 RI 30-10 forms are completed annually. Each 
form takes approximately 60 minutes to complete. The annual estimated 
burden is 2,500 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208, 
or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9af0f7fcfbe8e8f5f4daf5eaf7b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bed4d3d8dfccccd1d0fed1ced390d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before 
January 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--

Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief, Operations Support Division, Retirement and 
Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, 
NW, Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415-0001

      and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, NW, Room 3002, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: Mary 
Beth Smith-Toomey, Budget & Administrative Service Division, (202) 606-
0623, U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Janice R. Lachance,
Director.
[FR Doc. 97-34054 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.3

 

AMENDMENT TO THE

SPX CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN

FOR TOP MANAGEMENT

 

SPX Corporation currently maintains the SPX Corporation Supplemental Retirement Plan for Top Management (the “Plan”).  Pursuant to the powers of amendment reserved in Section 6.1 of the Plan, effective as of March 10, 2014, SPX Corporation hereby amends the Plan in the following manner:

 

1.              Section 8.2 of the Plan is amended by inserting the phrase “(as amended from time to time)” after the phrase “Executive Bonus Plan” and the phrase “Account Retirement Plan”.

 

2.              Section 8.3 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

 

“Section 8.3                              RESERVED”
Exhibit 32

THE DAYTON POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned officers of The Dayton Power and Light Company (the "Issuer") hereby certify that the Issuer's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003, which this certificate accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

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 statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

Signed:

/s/
Stephen F. Koziar
Stephen F. Koziar
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/
Caroline E. Muhlenkamp
Caroline E. Muhlenkamp
Group Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer

Date:
November 6, 2003

---

QuickLinks
No. 10216.

#### Wilson et al., Exrs., *v.*Hegler et al.

Decided March 31, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Fayette county.

*Messrs. Bost &*Reid, for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs.- Van Deman &*Burkhardt, for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ, concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.0

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-84050) of Laser Vision Centers, Inc. of our report
dated June 14, 2000 relating to the financial statements, which appears on page
F-1 of this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated June 14, 2000 on the financial statement schedule, which appears on
page F-27 of this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
July 27, 2000
Exhibit 10.22- CBMPP Eliminate All Pension Credits






AMENDMENT TO 
CINCINNATI BELL MANAGEMENT PENSION PLAN
The Cincinnati Bell Management Pension Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended, effective as of July 1, 2013 and in order to freeze accrued benefits under the Plan, by amending Subsection 5.3.3 of the Plan in its entirety to read as follows.
5.3.3    Notwithstanding the foregoing subsections of this Section 5.3 or any other provision of this Plan: (a) for any Participant who is not a Grandfathered Participant (as defined in Subsection 5.3.4 below), in no event shall any amount be credited under this Section 5.3 to the Participant’s Cash Balance Account based on any amount or portion of his Covered Compensation that is received by the Participant after March 28, 2009 (other than for Covered Compensation that is received by the Participant by April 3, 2009 and that relates to services of the Participant as a Covered Employee in the pay period that ended on March 28, 2009); and (b) for any Participant who is a Grandfathered Participant (as defined in Subsection 5.3.4 below), in no event shall any amount be credited under this Section 5.3 to the Participant’s Cash Balance Account based on any amount or portion of his Covered Compensation that is received by the Participant after June 30, 2013 (other than for Covered Compensation that is received by the Participant by July 5, 2013 and that relates to services of the Participant as a Covered Employee in the pay period that ends on June 29, 2013).  
   IN ORDER TO EFFECT THE FOREGOING PLAN CHANGE, the Plan’s sponsor, Cincinnati Bell Inc., has caused its name to be subscribed to this Plan amendment.
CINCINNATI BELL INC.


By: /s/ Christopher J. Wilson                   
Title: V.P. General Counsel & Secretary  
Date: May 16, 2013
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51309

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ANGEL MIRELES-TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-03-CR-354-1-WWJ

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Angel Mireles-Torres appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Mireles-Torres contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Mireles-Torres maintains that he

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-51309

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Mireles-Torres acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
                            DATA GENERAL CORPORATION

           COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)

                     (In thousands except per share amounts)
<CAPTION>

                                                   Quarter Ended      Six Months Ended
                                                -------------------  ------------------
                                                Mar. 29,   Mar. 30,  Mar. 29,  Mar. 30,
                                                  1997       1996     1997       1996
                                                --------   --------  --------  -------- 
                                                     

<S>                                              <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>    
Primary earnings per share:
Net income ...................................   $13,781   $ 6,334   $24,196   $11,043
                                                 =======   =======   =======   =======

Weighted average shares outstanding ..........    40,146    38,563    39,920    38,322

Incremental shares from use of treasury
  stock method for stock options .............     2,798     2,795     2,579     2,511
                                                 -------   -------   -------   -------

Common and common equivalent
  shares, where applicable ...................    42,944    41,358    42,499    40,833
                                                 =======   =======   =======   =======

Net income per share .........................   $   .32   $   .15   $   .57   $   .27
                                                 =======   =======   =======   =======

Earnings per share assuming full dilution: (a)
Net income ...................................   $13,781   $ 6,334   $24,196   $11,043
                                                 =======   =======   =======   =======

Weighted average shares outstanding ..........    40,146    38,563    39,920    38,322

Incremental shares from use of treasury
  stock method for stock options .............     2,826     2,801     2,660     2,514
                                                 -------   -------   -------   -------

Common and common equivalent shares,
  assuming full dilution, where applicable ...    42,972    41,364    42,580    40,836
                                                 =======   =======   =======   =======

Net income per share .........................   $   .32   $   .15   $   .57   $   .27
                                                 =======   =======   =======   =======


<FN>

(a)   For the quarters and six-month  periods ended March 29, 1997 and March 30,
      1996, the assumed conversion of convertible  debentures,  giving effect to
      the  incremental  shares and the  adjustment to reduce  interest  expense,
      results  in  anti-dilution  and  has  therefore  been  excluded  from  the
      computation.
</FN>
</TABLE>
#### Annette E. BLUM v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. and Magnifique Volkswagen, Inc.

No. 61144.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: Allstate Insurance Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Lafayette. 351 So.2d 283.

Denied.

TATE, J., dissents.
#### Peter Patrick LONGLEY v. STATE.

No. 38189.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Appeal dismissed without opinion. 216 So.2d 276.
#### Alvin D. KAUFMAN v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DRIVER’S LICENSE DIVISION.

No. 54345.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1974.

In re: Alvin D. Kaufman applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 286 So.2d 723.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the statute may be unconstitutional in the respect of automatic 6 month license suspension for refusal to submit to test.
#### Charles SIMMONS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42939.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 18, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 267 So.2d 58.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.