alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30631 Conference Calendar

SCOTT HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-1665

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Scott Harrison appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and Harrison’s brief and find no error in the reasoning of the district court. See Harrison v. State of Louisiana , No. 94-1665- LC (W.D. La. Jan. 23, 1995) (unpublished); Harrison v. State of Louisiana , No. 94-1665-LC (W.D. La. May 13, 1996) (unpublished). Harrison’s appeal is without arguable merit and, thus, frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.No. 96-30631 - 2 - 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Harrison is cautioned that any future frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Harrison is cautioned further to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EX-10.11



 Exhibit 10.11 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO CATTLE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO CATTLE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this “Second Amendment”) is made and effective this 23 day of May,
2013, by and between JBS USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“JBS”) and J&F Oklahoma Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“J&F”). 

RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, JBS
and J&F entered into that certain Cattle Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 23, 2008 (the “Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, JBS and J&F entered into that certain First Amendment to the Agreement dated September 22, 2010, in order to extend the term
of the Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, JBS and J&F desire to further amend the Agreement, as set forth in this Second Amendment, to increase the
Specified Number of Cattle, as such term is defined in the Agreement; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 

1. The following modification is made and incorporated into the Agreement, as follows: 

Section 3, the definition of “Specified Number of Cattle” is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: 

“Specified Number of Cattle” means, with respect to any calendar quarter, the lesser of (i) the actual number of cattle
purchased from J&F by JBS USA under this Agreement during such calendar quarter and (ii) 200,000 head of cattle. 
 2. Except as
specifically amended or waived by this Second Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. If there is any conflict between the terms and provisions set forth in this Second Amendment and those
set forth in the Agreement, this Second Amendment shall control. 
 3. This Second Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of
which is an original and all of which together constitute one and the same instrument. 
 [Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to the Cattle Purchase
and Sale Agreement as of the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	J&F:	 		  	JBS:
			
	J&F Oklahoma Holdings, Inc.	 		  	JBS USA, LLC
					
	By:	  	 /s/ Luke Lind
	 		  	By:	  	 /s/ Dennis Roerty

	Title:	  	J F Cattle	 		  	Title:	  	Treasurer
	Date:	  	5/23/13	 		  	Date:	  	5/23/13
<PAGE>

         Exhibit
         NUMBER

         21


                  SUBSIDIARIES OF SPECTRUM BANCORPORATION, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

NAME                                           STATE OF INCORPORATION
----                                           ----------------------
<S>                                            <C>
F&M Bank                                       South Dakota

Rushmore Bank & Trust Co.                      South Dakota

Citizens Bank(1)                               Iowa

Citizens Bank of Princeton                     Missouri

Citizens Bank, Carlisle                        Iowa

Spectrum Banc Service Corporation              South Dakota
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11



                    THE DELTONA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                                                                            Years Ended
                                            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            December 31,     December 31,  December 31,   December 31,   December 25,
                                                1996            1995           1994            1993          1992
                                            ------------    ------------   -----------    ------------   -------------

<S>                                         <C>              <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>
Computation of primary income (loss)
  per common share(a):

 Loss before extraordinary item.....         $  (1,227)      $  (2,905)    $   (3,906)    $   (8,772)    $ (6,808)
                                             =========       =========     ==========     ==========     ========
 Net income (loss)..................         $    (896)      $  (2,203)    $   (3,906)    $   (8,772)    $  7 336
                                             =========       =========     ==========     ==========     ========
 Net income (loss) applicable
   to common stock..................         $    (896)      $  (2,203)    $   (3,906)    $   (8,772)    $  7,336
                                             =========       =========     ==========     ==========     ========
 Total weighted average common shares
   outstanding......................         $   6,730       $   6,699     $    6,669     $    6,057     $  5,964
                                             =========       =========     ==========     ==========     ========
 Per Common Share Data:
  Loss before extraordinary items(b)         $    (.18)      $    (.43)    $     (.59)    $    (1.45)    $  (1.19)
                                             =========       =========     ==========     ==========     ========

 Net income (loss)..................         $    (.13)      $    (.33)    $     (.59)    $    (1.45)    $   1.29
                                             =========       =========     ==========     ==========     ========


<FN>

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

     (a) Earnings per common share assuming full dilution was  approximately the
same for all periods.

     (b)  Earnings  per common share after  deducting  dividends  on  cumulative
redeemable preferred stock.

</FN>
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Aaron N. Daniels, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Argon ST, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: November 30, 2007   /s/ Aaron N. Daniels      Aaron N. Daniels  Chief Financial Officer  
81
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3344 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3344

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
                   For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.

    (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Lloyd B. Gamble of 
Fairfax, Virginia, the sum of $253,488.
    (b) Basis.--The payment required by subsection (a) shall be to 
compensate Lloyd B. Gamble for the injuries sustained by him as a 
result of the administration to him, without his knowledge, of lysergic 
acid diethylamide by United States Army personnel in 1957.

SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.

    The payment made pursuant to section 1 shall be in full 
satisfaction of all claims Lloyd B. Gamble may have against the United 
States for any injury described in such section.

SEC. 3. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

    Upon payment of the sum referred to in section 1, Lloyd B. Gamble 
shall not be eligible for any compensation or benefits from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Defense for any 
injury described in such section.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount of more than 10 percent of the 
amount paid pursuant to section 1 to be paid to or received by any 
agent or attorney for any service rendered to Lloyd B. Gamble in 
connection with the benefits provided by this Act. Any person who 
violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be 
subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United States 
Code.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.
                                     







103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3344

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                  For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.`
* 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

April 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40835

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO RAFAEL TURINO-TURINO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-16-ALL 

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Rafael Turino-Turino appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for being unlawfully found in the United

States after deportation, having previously been convicted of an

aggravated felony. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). 
No. 05-40835

-2-

The Government seeks enforcement of the waiver provisions in

Turino-Turino’s plea agreement. We decline ruling on the

applicability of the waivers because his constitutional challenge

is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998). Although Turino-Turino contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis

that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v.

Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.

Ct. 298 (2005). Turino-Turino properly concedes that his

argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit

precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further

review. 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-39868) of ImageX.com, Inc. of our reports dated
March 15, 2000 and March 5, 1999 relating to the financial statements of Howard
Press Limited Partnership, which appear in the Current Report on Form 8-K/A of
ImageX.com, Inc. dated September 7, 2000.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Florham Park, NJ
September 7, 2000
|   | A. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | B. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Bank. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                 |   |                                  |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:         November 10, 2010     | By:    | /s/ George E. Irwin              |   |
|                                                                                                 |   | George E. Irwin                       |   |
|                                                                                                 |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                                                                 |   |                                  |   |
Martin, Michael (OST) O^^T- 0 ST- ^OoS - 0 ^^V ^ 

OrPTOFTRANSPi From: City Manager [citymanager@cityofkake.org] 

Sent: ::; -..Thursday, July 01,201012:40 Pi\/1 't o 

To:.^ • Martin, Michael (OST) 

Subject: Public Comment •-\ [::; U: '•;} 

I apologize for not making the deadline yesterday and ask that you still accept our public comments for Air Service to 

Kake, Alaska. 

As the City iVIanager for Kake, Alaska, a consensus of the community and the City Council seems to indicate the 

preferred service be by Wings Alaska to our community for the next two years. However, it has been expressed that the 

community would like to see increased available flights by Wings of Alaska. If that is not possible for additional flights, 

then allowing another carrier to come in on times that Wings is not available. I have personally had this experience 

while I was stationed at a remote site on the Bearing Sea in Alaska, where service bye Wein Airlines was scheduled for 

three times a week. 1 personally coordinated with the US Postal Service logistics officer and was able to secure service 

by SeaAir on the days that Wein was not scheduled. 

Thank you very much for you time and please accept my apology on the delayed input. 

William Lee 

City Manager
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

 40

 41

▲★

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
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 Energy Edge Technologies Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.     Dated:  August 15, 2011 By:/s/ Joe Ragosta Joe Ragosta Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1275

___________________________

Alan Cole Onstad

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Wendy Kelley, Director of ADC (Originally named as Wendy Kelly); James

Gibson, Warden, Varner Super Max (Originally named as Gibson); Floria

Washington, Mrs., Classification Officer, Varner Super Max (Originally named as

Washington); Steven Ricketts, Major, Tucker Unit (Originally named as Rickett);

Does, Warden (signed 2nd step grievance); Directory (signed 3rd step grievance);

Deputy Warden (at Tucker Unit on 9/20/16); Marshall D. Reed, Deputy Director,

ADC; Williams, Deputy Warden, Tucker Unit

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

____________

Submitted: September 19, 2018

Filed: September 25, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Inmate Alan Cole Onstad appeals from the orders of the District Court

1

granting summary judgment to the remaining defendant James Gibson and entering

judgment against Onstad in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After de novo review,

viewing the record in the light most favorable to Onstad and drawing all reasonable

inferences in his favor, we find no basis for overturning the District Court’s wellreasoned determination that Gibson was entitled to qualified immunity.

2 See Johnson

v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). We affirm the

judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

_______________________

1The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

2Onstad has abandoned his claims against the other defendants. See Hess v.

Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that a claim was abandoned

because the appellant did not “brief this court on why dismissal was inappropriate”).

-2-
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41012 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDWIN CHARLES FORTES, JR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-86-ALL Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edwin Charles Fortes, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Andersv. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Fortes has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Fortes’s claims o f ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 25, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 05-41012

2 brief, and Fortes’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave towithdrawis GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with Annual Report of Comtech Group, Inc. and its
subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Jeffrey Kang, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company certifies, 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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.

Dated: March 16, 2007



By:

/s/ Jeffrey KangName:

Jeffrey KangTitle:

Chief Executive Officer