alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6899

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDUARDO ROMERO MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:18-cr-00012-D-1)

Submitted: November 23, 2021 Decided: November 30, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eduardo Romero Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eduardo Romero Martinez appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release, as well as Martinez’s 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in his supervised release revocation sentence based on 

Amendment 782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Upon review, we discern no 

abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that, in light of the identified 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, as well as the other considerations in play, 

compassionate release was not warranted. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-

31 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating 

compassionate release motions), cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 

12, 2021). Nor did the district court err in concluding that Martinez could not seek a 

reduction in his revocation sentence based on an after-enacted Guidelines amendment. See 

USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. n.7(A), p.s.; see also United States v. Spruhan, 989 F.3d 266, 269 

(4th Cir. 2021) (providing standard of review for the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion), cert. 

denied, No. 21-5532, 2021 WL 4733555 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021).

Accordingly, we affirm the appealed-from order. United States v. Martinez, 

No. 7:18-cr-00012-D-1 (E.D.N.C. May 25, 2021). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11
                                          
                        METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.
                         Computation of Earnings Per Share 
                      (in thousands, except per share amounts)
                                          
                                          
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    1998             1997
                                                                 ----------       ----------
<S>                                                             <C>              <C>
Loss per share - Basic (A):
   Continuing operations                                         $ (22,963)       $ (13,505)
   Cumulative convertible preferred stock 
     dividend requirement                                           (3,752)              --
                                                                 ----------       ----------
   Continuing operations attributable to
     common stock shareholders                                     (26,715)         (13,505)
   Discontinued operations                                              --           (8,753)
                                                                 ----------       ----------
   Net loss available for common stock shareholders              $ (26,715)       $ (22,258)
                                                                 ----------       ----------
                                                                 ----------       ----------
                         
Weighted average common stock shares 
  outstanding during the period                                     68,572           66,155
                                                                 ----------       ----------
                                                                 ----------       ----------

Loss per share - Basic:
   Continuing operations                                         $   (0.39)       $   (0.21)
   Discontinued operations                                              --            (0.13)
                                                                 ----------       ----------
   Net loss                                                      $   (0.39)       $   (0.34)
                                                                 ----------       ----------
                                                                 ----------       ----------
</TABLE>

(A)  In calculating diluted earnings per share, no potential shares of common 
     stock are to be included in the computation of diluted earnings per 
     share when a loss from continuing operations available to common 
     stockholders exists. For the three months ended March 31, 1998 and 1997, 
     the Company had a loss from continuing operations.
#### Victor HAMILTON, by his next friend, Virgil Hamilton, Jr., Intervenor-Appellee, v. TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-1067.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 8, 1976.

Charles Hampton White, Cornelius, Collins, Higgins & White, Nashville, Tenn., for defendant-appellant.

Thomas M. Daniel, Memphis & Shelby County Legal Services Ass’n, Memphis, Tenn., for intervenor-appellee.

Before PECK, LIVELY and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This is an appeal by the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association *682(TSSAA) from an order of the district court granting a preliminary injunction enjoining TSSAA from prohibiting the appellee Victor Hamilton from participating in interscholastic athletics on behalf of Memphis Frayser High School. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). The appellee does not contend that the eligibility rules of TSSAA are invalid. He argues in this court, as he did successfully in the district court, that he was entitled to reasonable notice and a hearing on the issue of whether he had lost his athletic eligibility by transferring from one school in the Memphis school district to another school in the same district in the absence of a change of residence by his parents.

Upon examination of the record the court concludes that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction in this case. This case was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the entire basis for relief was the appellee’s assertion that TSSAA had acted in violation of his right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. As the Fifth Circuit stated in *Mitchell*v. *Louisiana High School Athletic Association,*430 F.2d 1155, 1157-58 (5 Cir. 1970),

> For better or worse, the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment does not insulate a citizen from every injury at the hands of the state. “Only those rights, privileges and immunities that are secured by the Constitution of the United States or some Act of Congress are within the protection of the federal courts. Rights, privileges and immunities not derived from the federal Constitution or secured thereby are left exclusively to the protection of the states.” [Quoting from 1 W. Barron & A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice § 37 at 200 (Wright ed. 1960)]. The privilege of participating in interscholastic athletics must be deemed to fall in the latter category and outside the protection of due process, (citations omitted).

The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded for such further proceedings as may be required in light of this order.
SfATE OF MISSISSIPPI HALEY BARBOUR 


GOVERNOR 


MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUIY 

TRUDY D. FISHER, ExEClITJVE DIRECTOR 

June 27,2011 

Mrs. Gwendolyn Keyes-Fleming 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 


Region IV 


61 Forsyth Street 


Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 


Re: Southeastern Wood Preserving 


Canton, Madison County, MS 


Dear Mrs. Keyes-Fleming: 

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) letter ofJune 13,2011, requested 

written support for EPA to proceed with the National Priorities List (NPL) listing process 

for the Southeastern Wood Preserving site. 

I have reviewed the matter and concur with EPA's decision to proceed with the listing 

process with the understanding that no commitment offinancial resources is being made 

on the part ofthe State ofMississippi regarding costs associated with a cleanup at the 

Southeastern Wood Preserving site at this time. The State looks forward to working with 

EPA in this matter to ensure protection ofhuman health and the environment. 

Should you need anything further from the State on this matter, please feel free to contact 

me at 601-961-5221. 

Very truly yours, 

~,b~ Jerry B. Banks, P.E., BCE 


Chief, Groundwater Assessment & Remediation Division 


cc: Trudy D. Fisher 

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL 


POST OFFICE Box 2261· JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39225-2261· TEL: (601) 961-5171· FAX: (601) 354-6612. www.dcq.state.ms.us 


AN EQUAL OPPORTUNllY EMPLOYER
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

M.L., the mother,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM PROGRAM and J.P.F.B., the father,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D18-1476 & 4D18-1480

[August 20, 2018]

Consolidated appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial 

Circuit, Palm Beach County; Howard H. Harrison and Kirk Volker, Judges; 

L.T. Case No. 2016DP000762.

Gary L. Pickett, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum, West Palm Beach, for Appellee Florida 

Department of Children and Families.

Thomasina Moore and Laura J. Lee, Sanford, for Appellee Guardian ad 

Litem Program.

Elizabeth R. Berkowitz of the Law Offices of Elizabeth R. Berkowitz, 

P.A., for Appellee J.P.F.B.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                HERBERT L. LUCAS


        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, Herbert L. Lucas
constitutes and appoints David T. Howard or Steven H. Moger his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead, in any and
all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB of Nutraceutix, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, and any amendments or
supplements thereto, and to file this Power of Attorney and the Form 10-KSB with
all exhibits thereto, and to the documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the NASDAQ National Market System,
granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and
perform each requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as
fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, may do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

        Dated this 23rd day of March, 2001.

Signature:



/s/ Herbert L. Lucas
------------------------------------
Herbert L. Lucas



                                       23
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00251

- CR

Ashlee Castillo v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No

. 3 of Nueces County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 17MC

- 06940

- 3

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 1, 2019
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

25) ll-K- (B)-13 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:48 AM Sheet 25 of 325 
P.2 

/A Pl 

H-K-(B)-13 

SUMMARY OF MODELING ISSUES DISCUSSED BY THE INFORMAL 

ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP. 

Letter from R.L. Short, EPArEAB to Informal Analysis 

Working Group. 

October 19, 1979. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-13
#### MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Omar D. CRAIG.

No. 50109.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 22, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1978.

Dwight N. Ball, Oxford, for appellant.

Barrett J. Clisby, Omar D. Craig, William K. Duke, Oxford, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and BOWLING, JJ.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,150,003
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,531
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     47,620
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,491,087
<PP&E>                                       2,968,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                 554,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,132,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          735,194
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,681
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,279,140
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,132,841
<SALES>                                      4,630,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,630,298
<CGS>                                          753,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,774,327
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (938,614)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (230,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (708,614)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (708,614)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### H. J. KOKDEMIR and Sandra Kokdemir, his wife, Appellants, v. Mollie OLIPHANT, d/b/a The Villas, Appellee.

No. 72-1244.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION of CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT to SECTION 1350 of CHAPTER 63 of TITLE 18 of the UNITED
STATES CODE,

as ADOPTED PURSUANT to

SECTION 906 of THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report
of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 23, 2008 (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Registrant certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |     |  |                           
|---------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|October 27, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Donald H. Walker      
|                 |  |     |  | Donald H. Walker          
|                 |  |     |  | Vice President-Finance and
|                 |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer   

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a  14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that
Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as other otherwise stated in such filing.
|                                              |          |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------------|
|                                              |          |
|                                              |          |   |
|                                              | Ratio of      |
|                                              | earnings to   |
|                                              | fixed charges |
| (Dollars in millions)                             |          |   |
|                                              |          |   |
| Earnings(a)                                       | $             | 643  |
| Plus:                                             |          |   |
|    Interest included in expense(b) |          | 7,792  |
|    One-third of rental expense(c)  |          | 116  |
| Adjusted “earnings”                   | $             | 8,551  |
|                                              |          |   |
| Fixed Charges:                                    |          |   |
|   Interest included in expense(b)       | $             | 7,792  |
|   Interest capitalized                  |          | 20  |
|   One-third of rental expense(c)        |          | 116  |
| Total fixed charges                               | $             | 7,928  |
|                                              |          |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                |          | 1.08  |
|                                              |          |   |
|                                              |          |   |

| (a)   | Earnings before income taxes, noncontrolling interests, discontinued operations and undistributed earnings of equity investees. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b)   | Included interest on tax deficiencies. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------|

| (c)   | Considered to be representative of interest factor in rental expense. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE> 1

EX-19.1
Management Report






Management Report on Mercantile Bank National Association's Compliance, as
Servicer, With the Servicing Requirements of the Mercantile Credit Card
Master Trust Pooling and Servicing Agreement and Applicable Provisions of the
Series 1995-1 Supplement



Management of Mercantile Bank National Association (MBNA), as servicer, is
responsible for compliance with the servicing requirements in Article III,
Sections 3.01, 3.02, 3.04, 3.05, 3.06, 3.09, and 3.10, Article IV, and
Section 8.08 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the Mercantile Credit
Card Master Trust dated as of May 17, 1995, and the applicable provisions of
the Series 1995-1 Supplement, among MBNA, as seller and servicer, and Chase
Manhattan Bank (formerly Chemical Bank), as Trustee (collectively, the
Agreement).

Management has performed an evaluation of MBNA's compliance with the
aforementioned sections and applicable supplemental provisions of the
Agreement for the year ended August 31, 2000.  Based upon this evaluation,
management believes that, for the year ended August 31, 2000, MBNA, as
servicer, was materially in compliance with the aforementioned sections and
applicable supplemental provisions of the Agreement.


/s/ John Deibel

John Deibel
Vice President
November 21, 2000

                                      8
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 207 (Thursday, October 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 65245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26312]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8069]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Late Roman and Early Byzantine Treasures From The 
British Museum''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Late Roman and Early Byzantine Treasures 
From The British Museum,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at the The Art Institute of Chicago in Chicago, 
Illinois from on or about November 11, 2012, until on or about August 
25, 2013, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: October 18, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-26312 Filed 10-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```