alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 24.1
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint
Lionel Reilly, or Neal Soderquist, or either of them, attorney for me and in my
name and on my behalf to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PROFESSIONAL
VETERINARY PRODUCTS, LTD. for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2001, to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 with respect to the registration of the common stock of Professional
Veterinary Products, Ltd., and generally to do and perform all things necessary
to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could
do if personally present.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27/th/ day of
September, 2001.

                                                /s/ Michael L. Whitehair



STATE OF NEBRASKA                      )
                                       )        ss.
COUNTY OF DOUGLAS                      )


         On this 27/th/ day of September, 2001, before me, a Notary Public
qualified for said County, personally came Michael L. Whitehair, known to me to
be the identical person who signed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the
execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.



                                                    /s/ Kimberly Mischke
                                                    Notary Public

                                                    My commission expires:

                                                    April 13, 2005
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6403

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ROBERT RUSSELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Drip , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Henry E. Hudson , Senior District Judge. ( 3:95

- cr - 00045

- HEH

- 1 )

Submitted : October 14, 2021 Decided: October 18, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert Russell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Erik Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpubl ished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Robert Russell Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release . We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in its analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

. See United States
v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the fac ts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1493 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1493

  To designate the current and future Department of Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center in Louisville, Kentucky, as the ``Robley Rex Department 
                 of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 22, 2009

 Mr. McConnell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the current and future Department of Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center in Louisville, Kentucky, as the ``Robley Rex Department 
                 of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBLEY REX DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              MEDICAL CENTER.

    (a) Designation.--The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center 
in Louisville, Kentucky, and any successor to such medical center, 
shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 
designated as the ``Robley Rex Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, record, or other paper of the United States to the medical 
center referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a 
reference to the Robley Rex Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
Center.
                                 <all>
```
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. 08-50908

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LAMONT E KEITH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:98-CR-81-ALL

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lamont E. Keith, federal prisoner # 86855-080, was convicted in 1999 by

a jury of possession of cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841. United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d 784, 785 (5th Cir. 2000).

Based on the sentencing judge’s determination of drug quantity, and because he

had a prior felony drug conviction, the court sentenced him to the mandatory

minimum term provided by § 841(b)(1)(A). We rejected on direct appeal Keith’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 21, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50908

2

argument that the imposition of a mandatory minimum based on judicial

factfinding violated the Sixth Amendment rule announced in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See Keith, 230 F.3d at 786-87.

Seeking to take advantage of the Sentencing Commission’s recent

reductions in the offense levels for crack cocaine offenses, Keith filed a motion

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied the motion on the

basis that it lacked authority to grant a reduction below the mandatory

minimum of 20 years.

Keith appeals, arguing that the mandatory minimum does not apply in

light of Apprendi. According to Keith, drug quantity under § 841(b) is an

element for purposes of establishing both the minimum and maximum sentences

set out in § 841(b)(1)(A)-(C), and any fact that increases the maximum sentence

necessarily increases the minimum sentence. Thus, he contends, Apprendi

requires that such facts be alleged in the indictment and either admitted by the

defendant or found by a jury, and the district court had authority to reduce his

sentence. 

We are bound to follow our prior decision in Keith absent an intervening

contrary decision by the Supreme Court or this court en banc. United States v.

Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). We find no binding authority that

overrules or otherwise abrogates the holding in Keith. The judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3358

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Heather Lynn Tolliver

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo

____________

 Submitted: February 8, 2016

Filed: February 11, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

While Heather Tolliver wasserving a period of supervised release on a federal

criminal sentence, her probation officer petitioned the district court to revoke

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
supervised release based on several alleged violations of her release conditions. At

a supervised-release revocation hearing, Ms. Tolliver admitted to some of the

violations and denied others. After hearing the evidence, the district court found by

a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Tolliver had committed the contested

violations. The court revoked supervised release, and sentenced her to 8 months in

prison and two years of additionalsupervised release. On appeal, Ms. Tolliver argues

that the court clearly erred in finding that she committed the contested violations.

Upon careful review, we find no basis to disturb the district court’s findings. 

First, urinalysis testresultssupport the finding that Ms. Tolliver failed to complywith

substance-abuse testing by providing a “substituted” sample. See United States v.

Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (discussing clear error review). 

Second, sweat-patch test results support the finding that Ms. Tolliver illegally used

controlled substances and failed to truthfully answer her probation officer’s inquiries

about the drug use. Notably, sweat-patch testing is a generally reliable method of

determining drug use, see United States v. Meyer, 483 F.3d 865, 869-70 (8th Cir.

2007), and the results of a hair-follicle test, without more evidence as to the method

and sample used, did not discredit the sweat-patch test results, especially where the

district court found credible the hearing testimony establishing that the sweat patches

were not contaminated, see United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir.

2003) (credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal).

The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following are descriptions of subsidiaries which are directly or indirectly
owned by the BostonFed Bancorp, Inc .(the "Company"):

Boston Federal Savings Bank. Boston Federal Savings Bank ("Boston Federal") is a
subsidiary of the Company and is a federally-chartered savings bank.

Broadway National Bank. Broadway National Bank ("Broadway National") is a
subsidiary of the Company and is a nationally-chartered commercial bank.

BFD Preferred Capital Trust I. BFD Preferred Capital Trust I is a subsidiary of
the Company and was organized as a common law trust under New York law in 2000.
BFD Preferred Capital Trust II. BFD Preferred Capital Trust II is a subsidiary
of the Company and was organized as a statutory business trust under Delaware
law in 2000.

Diversified Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Forward Financial Company. Forward Financial
Company was acquired by Boston Federal in December 1999. It is incorporated
under Massachusetts law and operates as a subsidiary of Boston Federal.

Elmsmere Insurance Agency, Inc. Ellsmere Insurance Agency, Inc. was acquired by
Broadway National in December 1999. It is incorporated under Massachusetts law
and operates as a subsidiary of Broadway National.

BFS Preferred Capital Corp. BFS Preferred Capital Corp. is a subsidiary of
Boston Federal and was organized under Massachusetts law in 1998 as a real
estate investment trust, in satisfaction of Section 858 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended.

BNB Preferred Capital Corp. BNB Preferred Capital Corp. is a subsidiary of
Broadway National and was organized under Massachusetts law in 1998 as a real
estate investment trust, in satisfaction of Section 858 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended.

BFS Security Corp. BFS Security Corp. is a subsidiary of Boston Federal and was
organized under Massachusetts law in 1998 as an investment subsidiary.

BNB Security Corp. BNB Security Corp. is a subsidiary of Broadway National and
was organized under Massachusetts law in 1998 as an investment subsidiary.

BF Funding Corporation. BF Funding Corporation is a subsidiary of the Company
and was organized under Massachusetts law in 1995 for purposes of funding the
Boston Federal Savings Bank ESOP plan.

Leader Corporation. Leader Corporation is incorporated under Massachusetts law
and is a subsidiary of Boston Federal.
* 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. 01-30733 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL BELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CR-30033-2 

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Bell, federal prisoner #23819-044, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1651 petition. 

“The All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)] is a residual source of

authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by

statute. Where a statute specifically addresses the particular

issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act,

that is controlling.” Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416,

429 (1996) (internal citation and quotation omitted). The proper

vehicle for attacking errors that occurred during or before
No. 01-30733 

-2-

sentencing is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v.

United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). Bell is

attacking the validity of his conviction and is currently still

incarcerated; therefore 28 U.S.C. § 1651 is not controlling. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Order filed, December 13, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00730

- CV

____________ HUA XU , Appellant

V.
DAVID K. LAM (AKA'S: KA PUN LAM, KA P. LA M, DAVID LAM, KAPUN LAM) SUN, INDI VIDUALLY AND JIA TIA N AKA ANGELA TIAN , Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 79571



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due October 30, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On October 30, 2013
, this court granted Amanda King ’ s motion
for extension of time to file the record to November 17, 2013

. The court has not
received a nother request to exte nd time for filing the record. The record has notbeen filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely,

we issue the following order.

We order Amanda King , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal withi n 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Cutter &Buck Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30,2006 (the “Report”), I, Ernest R. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of myknowledge and belief, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|        | /s/ ERNEST R.  JOHNSON          |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   | Ernest R. Johnson               |   |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer*       |   |
|   | *(Principal Executive Officer)* |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 779-780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-48]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Technical Information Service


National Technical Information Service Advisory Board

AGENCY: National Technical Information Service, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the next meeting of the National 
Technical Information Service Advisory Board (the Advisory Board), 
which advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) on policies and 
operations of the Service.

DATES: The Advisory Board will meet on Tuesday, February 10, 2012 from 
9 a.m. to approximately 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Advisory Board meeting will be held in Room 115 of the 
NTIS Facility at 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22312. Please 
note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pat Moton, (703) 605-6103, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abfbcadfe6c4dfc4c5ebc5dfc2d885ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cf9faebb82a0bba0a18fa1bba6bce1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>, or Mr. Bruce Borzino, (703) 605-6405, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1173737e636b787f7e517f6578623f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b69696479716265644b657f6278256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NTIS Advisory Board is established by 
Section 3704b(c) of Title 15 of the United States Code. The charter has 
been filed in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.).
    The morning session will focus on a review of NTIS' performance in 
Fiscal Year 2011, strategic directions in Fiscal Year 2011-2012, new 
markets and new ways to enhance NTIS' utility to Federal and non-
Federal customers. The afternoon session is expected to focus on 
current lines of business and core competencies. A final agenda and 
summary of the proceedings will be

[[Page 780]]

posted at the NTIS Web site as soon as they are available (http://www.ntis.gov/about/advisorybd.aspx).
    The NTIS Facility is a secure one. Accordingly, persons wishing to 
attend should call the contacts identified above to arrange for 
admission. If there are sufficient expressions of interest up to one-
half hour will be reserved for public comments during the afternoon 
session. Questions from the public will not be considered by the Board 
but any person who wishes to submit a written statement for the Board's 
consideration should mail or email it to the contacts named above not 
later than January 20, 2012.

    Dated: December 28, 2011.
Bruce Borzino,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-48 Filed 1-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-04-P


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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1405 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1405

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
To redesignate the Longfellow National Historic Site, Massachusetts, as 
   the ``Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic 
                                 Site''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Longfellow House-Washington's 
Headquarters National Historic Site Designation Act''.
SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF LONGFELLOW NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, 
MASSACHUSETTS.
    (a) In General.--The Longfellow National Historic Site in 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as ``Longfellow 
House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Longfellow National 
Historic Site shall be considered to be a reference to the ``Longfellow 
House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**EXHIBIT 21.1****SUBSIDIARIES OF****INTERNATIONAL WIRE GROUP, INC.**     **JURISDICTION OF**  **INCORPORATION OR****SUBSIDIARY** **ORGANIZATION**Omega Wire, Inc. Delaware   Wire Technologies, Inc. Indiana   IWG High Performance Conductors, Inc. New York   IWG Resources LLC Nevada   Italtrecce-Societa Italiana Trecce & Affini, S.r.l Italy   International Wire, S.A.S. France   International Wire Group, S.A.S. France   Tresse Metallique J. Forissier, S.A. France   Cablerie E. Charbonnet, S.A. France
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH MARION HAMPTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-00-616)

Submitted: October 15, 2004 Decided: October 25, 2004

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Marion Hampton, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Marion Hampton appeals the district court’s

orders denying relief on his motion to modify his sentence and his

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See United States v. Hampton, No. CR-00-616

(D.S.C. filed Apr. 22, 2004 & entered Apr. 24, 2004; May 14, 2004).

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



CERTIFICATIONS



I, M. Ray (Hoppy) Cole, Jr. Chief Executive Officer, certify
that



this periodic report containing financial statements
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the issuer.



Date: March 21, 2013



| | /s/ M. Ray
    (Hoppy) Cole, Jr.
| | --------------------------------
| | M. Ray (Hoppy) Cole, Jr.        
| | Chief Executive Officer         



I, Dee Dee Lowery, Chief Financial Officer, certify that



this periodic report containing financial statements
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the issuer.



Date: March 21, 2013



| | /s/ Dee
    Dee Lowery 
| | -----------------------
| | Dee Dee Lowery         
| | Chief Financial Officer