alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 14

- 1647

___________ LEONARD THOMPSON,

Appellant

v. MARY MICHELS

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 13

- cv
- 00962) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Maureen P. Kelly

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 23, 2014 Before: JORDAN, COWEN and BARRY , Ci rcuit Judges

(filed: July 24, 2014)

___________ OPINION

___________2

PER CURIAM Leonard Thompson appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that dismissed his action with prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdict ion. 1 For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
I. Thompson broug ht this lawsuit against Michels , seeking damages for a failed
business deal with Michels’ deceased spouse

. Liberally read, Thompson’s pro se complaint alleged fraud, theft, and breach o f contract or, in the al ternative, unjust
enrichment. Thompson asserted federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, a federal crimi nal statute pertaining to mail fraud

. Michels filed a motion to dismiss, arguing , among other things, that the District Court lacked jurisdiction . The District Court agreed and granted
Michels’ motion to dismiss . Thompson appealed.
II. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whet her the District Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction. See M etro. Life Ins. Co. v. Price , 501 F.3d 271, 275 (3d Cir. 2007).

1 The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).3

Here, w e agree with the District Court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

. Thompson invoked 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , but that is a criminal statute that does not give rise

to a private ri ght of action

. See Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank , 167 F.3d 402, 40 7

- 0 8 (8th Cir.1999) (collecting cases). In other words , the statute authorizes public actors (the government) to criminally pro secute individuals for mail frau d, but it does not provide a
b asis upon which an alleged victim of mail fraud may bring a civil lawsuit in federal

court. Thompson did not plead any other ground upon which federal jurisdiction could alternatively rest , and we can perceive none

. The causes of action in Thomp son’s

com plaint arise under state law and therefore do not give rise to jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1331

. Nor could there be diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Among other things, that jurisdictional basis requires the parties to be citizens of dif ferent states.
See Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Woo d , 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010). It is

unconte sted that both Thompson and Michels are citizens of Pennsylvania.
III. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s dismis sal for lack of jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,400,511
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              14,247
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,800,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     14,336,488
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          25,997,021
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            25,994,375
<LOANS>                                         73,525,340
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,138,747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,779,866
<DEPOSITS>                                     108,512,469
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,048,160
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           600,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,619,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 123,779,866
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,749,755
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,899,156
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   437,034
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,085,945
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,623,243
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,623,243
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,462,702
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      100,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                       0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,113,516
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,238,011
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,407,434
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,407,434
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         2.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         2.35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        7.64
<LOANS-NON>                                        285,150
<LOANS-PAST>                                        48,633
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     59,462
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   899,245
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       98,124
<RECOVERIES>                                       237,626
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,138,747
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,138,747
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                  0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7603

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:01-cr-00533-PJM-20)

Submitted: May 6, 2011 Decided: May 25, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin Arnoldo Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edwin Arnoldo Reyes appeals from the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction 

of sentence based upon Amendment 503 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines. We review an order granting or denying a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Under § 3582(c)(2), 

the district court may modify the term of imprisonment “of a 

defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing 

range that has subsequently been lowered.” Here, Reyes’ 

sentencing range was not lowered, as Reyes was sentenced after

the amendment in question became effective. As such, § 3582 is 

inapplicable. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district 

court. 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
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 Quarterly Report of Finishing Touches Home Goods Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nikolay Koval, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certify, 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 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.
   Dated: September 13, 2011
     By:
     /s/ Nikolay KovalNikolay Koval
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---
#### Financial Clearing & Services Corp., Respondent, v Simon Katz et al., Appellants. Financial Clearing & Services Corp., Respondent, v Abraham Katz et al., Appellants.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Eve M. Preminger, J.), entered on September 20, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted the petition in each case to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondents’ cross-petitions to vacate the awards, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In 1985, Simon, Rose and Volvi Katz established accounts with petitioner, a clearing broker. Brown Knapp & Co. was the introducing broker. Respondents in the second action, Abraham Katz and Abraham Tusk, executed guarantees on these accounts. In October 1987, after the stock market crash, petitioner liquidated these accounts to cover margin deficiencies, leaving an aggregate debit balance of $179,000. Pursuant to arbitration clauses in the agreements, petitioner initiated a securities arbitration to recover the deficits in respondents’ accounts and received an award of $178,000. Thereafter, petitioner received an arbitration award of $178,750 against the guarantors. In both cases, petitions were brought pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm the awards, and respondents cross-moved to vacate the awards. The appeals from the orders granting the petitions and denying the cross-petitions were consolidated by order of this Court dated December 6, 1990.

Respondents failed to meet their burden of showing by clear and convincing proof that the arbitration panel’s denial of respondents’ request for discovery of trade tickets pertaining to the liquidation constituted misconduct as defined in CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (i). On the record before the court, respondents failed to prove that the trade tickets were necessary to prove their defense.

Nor did respondents show by clear and convincing evidence that the agreements and guarantees were void as a matter of public policy because the introducing broker, Brown Knapp & *291Co., was not duly registered. Since Brown Knapp was not a party to the agreements at issue, those agreements were not void as a matter of law. Accordingly, the arbitrators did not exceed their power by making an award on the basis of a void contract (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; *compare, Anton Sattler, Inc. v Cummings,*103 Misc 2d 4). Furthermore, to the extent that respondents seek to hold petitioner responsible for the fraudulent acts of the introducing brokers, there was no evidence in the record to make such a finding. In any event an arbitrator’s award is not subject to judicial review for errors of law or fact. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.
-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 DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6324

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARTHUR LEE WILLIAMS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00312-HEH-3; 

3:19-cv-00073-HEH)

Submitted: June 19, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and dismissing it as successive. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. 

Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and 

that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams 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 this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.19 MB)

Tags:Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Utility Services, dla, DLA Energy , Defense Logistics Agency, babies

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Exhibit 10.18

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to
Employment Agreement (the Amendment), is made and entered into this 21st day of April, 2011, by and among American Renal Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the Company), American Renal Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (ARH), and John M. McDonough (Executive).

WHEREAS, Company, ARH and Executive
entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated March 22, 2010 (the Agreement);

WHEREAS, Company, ARH
and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to change the title of Executive, as more fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE,
for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

1. Article 1 shall be amended in its entirety effective as of the date hereof to read as follows: During the term of this Agreement, the Company will employ the Executive, and the Executive will
serve the Company in the capacity of the Chief Operating Officer of the Company.

2. Except as amended hereby, the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

3. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in the accordance with
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts without giving effect to the principals of conflicts of laws.

4. This Amendment may be
executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which taken together constitute one in the same Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has bee executed by the parties hereto effective as of the date written above.



EXECUTIVE/s/ John M. McDonoughJohn M. McDonough




AMERICAN RENAL HOLDINGS, INC.By:

/s/ Joe CarlucciJoe Carlucci, CEO




AMERICAN RENAL MANAGEMENT, LLCBy:

/s/ Joe CarlucciJoe Carlucci, CEO
EX-10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 

[LANDS’ END LETTERHEAD] 

January 31, 2014 
 Karl Dahlen 

[Address Omitted] 
 Dear Karl, 

I am pleased to confirm the details of your promotion to SVP, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. We all believe the future of Lands’ End will
provide us with many opportunities for growth and the company is well positioned for continued success. 
 The following outlines several facets of your
compensation package: 
  

	 	•	 	Effective date of January 25, 2014. 

  

	 	•	 	Annual base salary of $270,000 paid in bi-weekly payments. (This will include your 2014 merit award.) 

  

	 	•	 	Your annual target bonus incentive opportunity will increase to 50% of your base salary earned after the effective date of your promotion. The portion of the bonus target paid each year will continue to be based on your
performance and the company’s fiscal results. 

  

	 	•	 	You will also be required to sign an ESA. 

 Karl, we all think highly of you and believe there will be
continued opportunity to leverage your knowledge, experience, and leadership as we pursue our vision of becoming a $5 Billion global lifestyle brand. 

Sincerely, 
  

					
	 /s/ Edgar Huber
	 		 	 /s/ Karl Dahlen

	Edgar Huber	 		 	Karl Dahlen
	President/CEO
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45627-45628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19467]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a695f59485f4e5b48437a5c5759145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e7d4b4d5c4b5a4f5c576e48434d00494158">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the 
Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the 
Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of 
Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cebabcafaaabafa0afa2b7bda7bd8ea8a3ade0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7a3a5b6b3b2b6b9b6bbaea4bea497b1bab4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 011931-009.
    Agreement Name: CMA CGM/Marfret Vessel Sharing Agreement for PAD 
Service.
    Parties: CMA CGM S.A. and Compagnie Maritime Marfret.
    Filing Party: Draughn Arbona; CMA CGM (America) LLC.
    Synopsis: The amendment reverts the service string to a fortnightly 
service frequency. The parties request expedited review.
    Proposed Effective Date: 10/15/2018.

[[Page 45628]]

    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/512.
    Agreement No.: 201271.
    Agreement Name: MED/USEC Vessel Sharing Agreement.
    Parties: American President Lines, ltd.; APL Co. Pte. Ltd.; CMA CGM 
S.A.; COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd.; COSCO Shipping Lines (Europe) 
GmbH; Hapag-Lloyd AG, Ocean Network Express Pte. Ltd.; OOCL (Europe) 
Limited; Orient Overseas Container Line Limited; and Yang Ming Marine 
Transport Corporation and Yangming (UK) Ltd.
    Filing Party: Josh Stein; Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes the Parties to charter and 
exchange space on their respective vessels in the Agreement trade and 
to enter into cooperative working arrangements in connection therewith. 
The Agreement covers the trades between ports in the Mediterranean 
(France, Italy, Malta, Morocco and Spain) and U.S. ports in the 
Atlantic coast range.
    Proposed Effective Date: 10/15/2018.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/16275.

    Dated: September 4, 2018.
Rachel Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19467 Filed 9-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT   12.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                    Trigen Energy Corporation and Subsidiaries
                    Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                              (in thousands)
                              
<S>                           <C>     <C>    <C>       <C>       <C>
                              1998    1997   1996      1995      1994
                              ----    ----   ----      ----      ----

Earnings before extra-
   Ordinary item              $6,557  $5,025  $14,051  $10,564  $8,561
Add (deduct):
   Income taxes                4,575   3,491    9,252    7,324   5,949
   Fixed charges              24,268  20,508   20,145   20,883  17,774
   Interest capitalization     ( 524)  ( 374)   ( 328)   ( 300)  ( 250)
   (Income)/losses of less
   than 50% owned companies   (4,475)    266    ( 322)   ( 316)  ( 224)
                             ------- -------  -------   ------- -----
Earnings before extraordi-
  Nary item, as adjusted     $30,401 $28,916  $42,798  $38,155 $31,810

Fixed Charges
   Interest expense          $23,742 $18,840  $18,840  $19,890 $16,657
   Interest capitalized          524     374      328      300     250
   Portion of rents representa-
   tive of interest factor(1)  1,400   1,158      977      693     867
                              ------ -------  -------  ------- ------
Total fixed charges          $25,666 $20,508  $20,145  $20,883 $17,774
                             ------- -------  -------  ------- ------
Ratio of earnings to
   Fixed charges                 1.2     1.4      2.1      1.8     1.8
                             ------- -------  -------  ------- -------


Note:
(1)  Estimated to be 1/3 of total rent expense.


</TABLE>