alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-4622 ARTHUR PURDIE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-95-845) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Ben A. Hagood, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Arthur Purdie pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1994), possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841, and possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (1994). He appeals his 46-month sentence, arguing that the district court clearly erredin enhancing his sentence for possession of a firearm during the offense. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 2D1.1(b)(1) (Nov. 1995). We affirm. Purdie sold cocaine to an undercover officer on March 22 andMarch 30, 1994. On November 19, 1995, a search warrant was executed at Purdie's residence. When the agents knocked on the door, Purdie shouted, "If I can't see you, I'm going to start shooting." The agents identified themselves and Purdie came to the door unarmed. However, a loaded firearm was found on the dresser in his bedroom next to 39.1 grams of cocaine and 2.7 grams of crack packaged in small plastic bags. Purdie told the federal agent in charge that he operated a nightclub and carried the gun for protection. The two-level enhancement is applicable if the government shows that a firearm was present during the offense, unless the court finds that it was clearly improbable that the firearm was connected with theoffense. USSG § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3). At sentencing, Purdie argued that it was clearly improbable that the firearm was connected with the offense, but the district court found that the loaded weapon's close proximity to the drugs did not permit that conclusion. The court's finding was not clearly erroneous.The sentence is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
200000<ss2,BF> 00000<ss3,RO> 00000<ss4,BF> 00000<ss5,RO> 00000<ss6,RO> 00000<ss7,IT> 00000<ss8,RO> 00000<ss9,RO> 01980<ss10,BF> 00000<ss11,RO> 00000<ss12,RO> 00000<ss13,BF> 00000
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 15 March 2012, at 10 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street NW., Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks, and memorials.

                    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:                     *www.cfa.gov*. Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing                     *staff@cfa.gov;*                     or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated: February 29, 2012 in Washington DC.

Thomas Luebke,

AIA, Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-5357 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6331-01-M
#### G. Carmen HERRERA, Plaintiff, v. SPERRY CORPORATION, Travelers Insurance Company, Second Injury Fund, and Industrial Commission of Utah, Defendants.

No. 860062.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 17, 1987.

Denton M. Hatch, Wesley M. Lang, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

Erie V. Boorman, Salt Lake City, for Second Injury Fund.

Thomas Kay, Steven J. Aeschbacher, Salt Lake City, for Sperry Corp. and Travelers Ins. Co.

Steven M. Hadley, Salt Lake City, for Indus. Com’n.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:

This case is an appeal from an Industrial Commission ruling that an injury suffered by G. Carmen Herrera was not a compensa-ble accident. We reverse.

Herrera was performing one of her normal daily tasks of lifting a computer from floor level up to a conveyor belt when she felt a snap and a tingling pain in her lower back. As a result of this injury, Herrera was unable to work for several months. *913She applied for compensation under section 36-1-45 of the Code, U.C.A., 1953, § 35-1-45 (1974 ed., Supp.1986), which states: “Every employee ... who is injured ... by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment ... shall be paid ... compensation. ...”

The Industrial Commission of Utah ruled that the injury was not an “accident” because Herrera suffered her injury while performing her usual daily tasks in the usual manner. Herrera appeals the decision of the Industrial Commission. She contends that unexpected injuries incurred while performing one’s usual duties are compensable “accidents” if there is a causal connection between the injury and the worker’s employment duties.

After this appeal was argued, we decided *Allen v. Industrial Commission,*729 P.2d 15 (Utah 1986). There, we held that “an accident is an unexpected or unintended occurrence that may be *either*the cause *or*the result of an injury.” *Id.*at 22 (emphasis in original). Under this definition, Herrera’s injury was an “accident.” Whether she is entitled to compensation depends on her satisfying the other elements set out in *Allen.*We reverse and remand for further consideration in light of *Allen.*

HALL, C.J., STEWART, Associate C.J., and HOWE and DURHAM, JJ., concur.
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


Exhibit 10.1










THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This is the Third Amendment to the Employment Agreement (the "Agreement"), made and entered into the 20th day of November, 2002, the First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) made and entered into the 26th day of January, 2004, and the Second Amendment (“Second Amendment”) to Employment Agreement made and entered into the 18th day of January, 2006, by and between THE DIXIE GROUP, INC., a Corporation having its principal place of business at 2208 South Hamilton Street, Dalton, Georgia 30721 (hereinafter referred to as the "Employer") and DAVID POLLEY, an individual residing at West Brow Road, Lookout Mountain, Tennessee (hereinafter referred to as the "Employee").




The Employer and Employee, pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Agreement, amend the Agreement in writing as follows:




1.

The date of “November 19, 2008” is substituted for the date of “November 19, 2007” in paragraph 1 of the Second Amendment.




2.

Paragraph 9 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly constituted officers and the Employer has hereunto set his hand to be effective as of January 6, 2007.




ACCEPTED AND AGREED:




Dixie Group, Inc.










By:

/s/  David Polley                      

By:

/s/  Daniel K. Frierson               

David Polley

Daniel K. Frierson




Dated:

  1-6-07                                    

Dated:  1-5-07
Appendix C.3

Secondary Organic Aerosol Module Modifications in CMAQ

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

9th Floor L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243

TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -1 
[This page intentionally left blank.]

TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -2 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -3 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -4 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -5 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -6 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -7 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -8 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -9 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -10 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -11 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -12 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -13 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -14 
TN Regional Haze SIP Appendix C.2 -15
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 11348 Summary Calendar

HAYWARD GEORGE SLATER, JR. ,
Petitioner

- Appellant

v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CV

- 979

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hayward George Slater, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1734721, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for capital murder and sentence of life imprisonment. We granted Slater’s motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) with respect to “the district court’s procedural decision not to consider Slater’s grounds five, six, eight, and nine,”

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 19, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-11348 Document: 00515459619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2020No. 17

- 11348

2 denied a COA as to all other issues, and remanded to the district court for findings of fact

. We now affirm. In his initial brief, S later fails to demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in finding that the clerk’s office had not mishandled his filings, see St. Aubin v. Quarterman , 470 F.3d 1096, 1101 (5th Cir. 2006), and he does not otherwise address the procedural issue as to which a COA was granted, see Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1983) . We do not consider the arguments raised for the first time in Slater’s reply brief. See United States v. Davis , 602 F.3d 643, 648 n.7 (5th Cir. 2010)

. His motion for appointment of counsel is denied. See Wardlaw v. Cain , 541 F.3d 275, 279 (5th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED ; MOTION DENIED. Case: 17-11348 Document: 00515459619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2020
# L_2006176EN.01006801.xml

| 30.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 176/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 176/68

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 974/2006

of 29 June 2006

amending Regulation (EC) No 877/2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards notification of the prices recorded on the markets for certain fresh fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 28(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2004 (2) sets out a list of representative markets on which a substantial part of the national output of a given product is marketed throughout the marketing year or during one of the periods into which the year is divided. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2004 (2) sets out a list of representative markets on which a substantial part of the national output of a given product is marketed throughout the marketing year or during one of the periods into which the year is divided.

| (2) | In Germany, there has been a shift of the representative market for carrots from Schleswig-Holstein to Nordrhein-Westfalen. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In Germany, there has been a shift of the representative market for carrots from Schleswig-Holstein to Nordrhein-Westfalen.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 877/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 877/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 877/2004, for the product ‘Carrots’ the market ‘Schleswig-Holstein (DE)’ is replaced by the market ‘Nordrhein-Westfalen (DE)’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 June 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 162, 30.4.2004, p. 54.

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2021 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2021

    To extend the temporary duty suspension on certain pepperoncini 
            prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary duty suspension on certain pepperoncini 
            prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PEPPERONCINI PREPARED OR PRESERVED OTHERWISE THAN BY 
              VINEGAR.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.27 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to pepperoncini prepared or 
preserved otherwise than by vinegar, not frozen) is amended by striking 
the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

Calendar No. 86 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1344 

To temporarily protect the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2009 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. KYL, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. BARRASSO) 

introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JUNE 25, 2009 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To temporarily protect the solvency of the Highway Trust 

Fund. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Highway Investment 

5 Protection Act’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1344 PCS

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY PROTECTION OF HIGHWAY TRUST 

2 FUND SOLVENCY. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—From the amounts appropriated 

4 and remaining unobligated under the American Recovery 

5 and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. Law 111-5), the Di6 rector of the Office of Management and Budget shall 

7 transfer to the Highway Trust Fund such sums as the 

8 Secretary of Transportation determines will be necessary 

9 to ensure that the Highway Trust Fund balance does not 

10 fall below the threshold that would require a change from 

11 monthly payments to weekly payments of expenditures 

12 from the Highway Trust Fund through September 30, 

13 2010. The Director of the Office of Management and 

14 Budget shall report to each congressional committee the 

15 amounts so transferred within the jurisdiction of such 

16 committee. 

17 (b) CONFORMING EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AU18 THORITY.—Subsections (b)(6), (c)(1), and (e)(3) of sec19 tion 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each 

20 amended by striking ‘‘2009’’ each place it appears and 

21 inserting ‘‘2010’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 86 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1344 

A BILL 

To temporarily protect the solvency of the Highway 

Trust Fund. 

JUNE 25, 2009 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Letter Agreement, dated January 12, 2007--Sandell Asset Management Corp.


 Exhibit 10.7.1 
 Synova Healthcare Group, Inc. 
 1400 N. Providence Road 
 Suite 6010, Building II 
 Media, PA 19063

 January 12, 2007 
 Sandell Asset Management Corp. (Castlerigg Master Investments) 
 40 West 57th Street — 26th Floor 
 New York, NY 10019 
 Attn: Cem Hacioglu 
  

	 	Re:	Synova Healthcare Group, Inc. 

 Gentlemen: 
 This letter evidences our agreement that upon closing of, and your funding under, the financing contemplated by that certain Securities Purchase
Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, among Synova Healthcare Group, Inc., Synova Healthcare, Inc., Synova Pre-Natal, Inc. and the various investors identified therein, Synova Healthcare Group, Inc. shall reimburse you (or, at your written
direction, pay on your behalf) your actual legal expenses incurred in connection with such Securities Purchase Agreement, not to exceed $10,000. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	SYNOVA HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Stephen E. King
		 	Stephen E. King, Chairman and CEO
#### Julio Cesar et al., Respondents, v United Technology of New York et al., Appellants. (And Four Other Actions.)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered March 1, 1990, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to restore these personal injury actions to the court’s calendar, and which denied defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Seven personal injury actions were separately commenced on various dates by spectators injured in an air show helicopter crash. Plaintiffs successfully moved to restore these actions to the trial calendar in the Supreme Court following defendants’ breach of a condition not to assert the statute of limitations defense outside New York, after a prior New York County action was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. *(Cappellini v United Technology,*79 AD2d 593.)

Defendants now argue that it was improper for the court to designate March 23, 1978—the day on which the first of the summonses were served on defendants—as the date on which all summonses would be deemed served for statute of limitations purposes. We note that insofar as this determination was made in a prior order of the Supreme Court and not disturbed on appeal *(Cappellini v United Technology, supra),*the deter*395mination constitutes the law of the case *(see,*1 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 2:64).

Defendants’ further argument that determination of the age of majority for statute of limitations tolling purposes is governed by CPLR 105 (j) is, under the instant circumstances, without merit. That section defining infancy as terminating at 18 years must be read together with CPLR 105 (a): CPLR 105 definitions apply "[u]nless the context requires otherwise”. This is such a case. Plaintiffs, who were infants at the time of the mishap, are domiciliaries of Uruguay, where the age of majority is 21 years of age. Insofar as the law of the domicile determines the age of majority *(Matter of Sikes,*77 Misc 2d 63 [Sur Ct, Erie County, 1974]), it is plain from the record that each of these plaintiffs timely commenced their tort actions within 3 years of their 21st birthday. In light of the foregoing the issue of laches is rendered academic. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Kassal, JJ. *[See,*148 Misc 2d 918.]
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





In
connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) by Mach One Corporation ("Registrant"),
the undersigned hereby certifies 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, as amended,
  and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.





/s/ TAD
      M. BALLANTYNETad
      M. BallantyneChief
      Executive Officer





Date:
April 16, 2010








A signed
original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been
provided to Mach One Corporation and will be retained by Mach One Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
* 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. 96-11478 Conference Calendar

ANTHONY E. GILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus R.E. THORNTON, Visiting Judge, Tarrant County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CV-747-E

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Anthony E. Gill, Texas prisoner #647051, appeals the dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) of his civil rights complaint. Gill contends that Texas trial court judge R.E. Thornton improperly presided over his state trial as the court was without jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and Gill’s brief, and we conclude that Gill’s appealNo. 96-11478 - 2 - is without arguable merit. See Gill v. Thornton , No. 4:96-CV747-E (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 1996). The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Gill’s motion to file a supplemental brief is DENIED. We caution Gill that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Gill is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.