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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1916

CLARK C. KIRKLAND, SR.; SHARON S. KIRKLAND,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

RUSSELL CHASTAIN, Individually, d/b/a Kirby of

Simpsonville, South Carolina; LISA CHASTAIN,

Individually, d/b/a Kirby of Simpsonville,

South Carolina; HARRY BOWEN, Individually

d/b/a Tri State Kirby, Franklin, North Carolina; SCOTT FETZER CORPORATION, d/b/a Kirby

Company USA, Westlake, Ohio; RONNIE RICHARDS,

Individually; RALPH ALVERSON, Individually;

DAVID RICE, Individually; TOWN OF WOODRUFF,

SOUTH CAROLINA; J. CARLISLE OXNER, JR., Individually; CHET MORRIS, Individually; JERRY

COOPER, Individually; NANCY SKINNER, Individually; PHOEBE WADDELL, Individually; WOODRUFF

STATE BANK SHARES, d/b/a Woodruff State Bank;

DOUGLAS RICHARDSON, Individually; GEORGE

GREEN, Individually; COUNTY OF LAURENS, SOUTH

CAROLINA; HAROLD LEE, Individually; COUNTY OF

GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA; LAURENS COUNTY,

SOUTH CAROLINA, SHERIFF AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,

SHERIFF AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-3370-6-3AK)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1996
2
3

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clark C. Kirkland, Sr., Sharon S. Kirkland, Appellants Pro Se.

Eddie R. Harbin, Greenville, South Carolina; Ronald Keith Wray, II,

GIBBES, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina;

William Stevens Brown, V, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH,

Greenville, South Carolina; Edwin Calhoun Haskell, III, SMITH &

HASKELL, Spartanburg, South Carolina; James John Raman, Spartanburg, South Carolina; Oscar William Bannister, Jr., David Garrison

Hill, HILL, WYATT & BANNISTER, L.L.P, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's order denying relief on

their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (1994) complaints, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Appellants' state law claims. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Kirkland v. Chastain, No. CA-95-

3370-6-3AK (D.S.C. May 20, 1996). 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
JOSEPH M. SHELTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2948

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 1, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Russell L. Healey, Judge.

Joseph M. Shelton, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, 

Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

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

 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the period ended November 29, 2008 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Hunt,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

     (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

     (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

|   |   |                                    |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| By:    |   | /s/ Steven D. Hunt                      |
|   |   |                                    |
|   |   | Steven D. Hunt*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: January 13, 2009
#### STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Richard A. BIELLA, Respondent.

No. 82SC309.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Nov. 29, 1983.

J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Cantrick, Sol. Gen., David K. Rees, Janet L.. Miller, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for petitioner.

Caplan & Earnest, Gerald A. Caplan, Boulder, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case has been heard and reviewed by the court. Chief Justice Erickson, Justice Lohr, and Justice Quinn favor affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. *Biella v. State Department of Highways,*652 P.2d 1100 (Colo.App.1982). Justice Rovira, Justice Dubofsky, and Justice Kirshbaum are in favor of reversal. Justice Neighbors was the trial judge and did not participate.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed by operation of law because of an equally divided court. C.A.R. 35(e).

NEIGHBORS, J., does not participate.
#### STATE ex rel. Roy SAWYER v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS.

No. 88-KH-1172.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 26, 1988.

In re Sawyer, Roy; applying for mandamus, prohibition, supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 257-074.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the district court with instructions to the trial judge to act on relator’s motion for *Boykin*transcript filed via certified mail on January 25, 1988.
Exhibit 12.1 - Statement re: Computation of Ratios for the Fiscal Years Ended
June 30, 2004, 2003 and 2002

                                     TENGTU
                                 RATIO WORKSHEET

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Year Ended
                                                                          June 30
                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                          2004              2003             2002
<S>                                                  <C>                <C>                <C>
Earnings:
Income (loss) from continuing operations
   before income taxes                               ($73,015,718)      ($1,862,412)       1,578,108
Add:
Fixed charges as calculated below                         268,572           201,758          254,029
                                                     ------------------------------       ----------
Adjusted income (loss)                               ($72,747,146)      ($1,660,654)      $1,832,137
                                                     ==============================       ==========

Fixed charges:
Interest on indebtedness                             $     42,155       $   107,939       $  167,474
Amortization of debt discount                             226,417            93,819           86,555
                                                     ------------------------------       ----------
Fixed charges, for computation purposes              $    268,572       $   201,758       $  254,029
                                                     ------------------------------       ----------
Ratio of earnings (deficiency) to fixed charges           (270.81)            (8.23)            7.21
                                                     ==============================       ==========
</TABLE>
#### Bruce BUTLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BQ-374.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 12, 1987.

P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s judgment and sentence for count 10 in circuit court case number 86-40 erroneously reflect that appellant’s attempted burglary of a dwelling conviction is a second degree felony. Attempted burglary of a dwelling is a third degree felony punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years. §§ 775.082(3)(d), 777.04(4)(c) and 810.02(3), Fla.Stat. The circuit court clearly expressed its intent to impose a sentence of five years incarceration on appellant’s third degree convictions. Accordingly, the sentence on count 10 is hereby reduced to five years incarceration. In all other respects the judgments and sentences appealed are AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 240

Commending Stephen G. Bale, Keeper of the Stationery, United States

Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Commending Stephen G. Bale, Keeper of the Stationery,

United States Senate.

Whereas the Senate has been advised that its Keeper of the

Stationery, Stephen G. Bale, will retire on December 31,

1999;

Whereas Steve Bale became an employee of the Senate of the

United States on November 13, 1969, and since that

date has ably and faithfully upheld the high standards

and traditions of the Senate for a period that included

sixteen Congresses;

Whereas Steve Bale has served with distinction as Keeper of

the Stationery, and at all times has discharged the important duties and responsibilities of his office with dedication and excellence; and
2

SRES 240 ATS

Whereas his exceptional service and his unfailing dedication

have earned him our esteem and affection: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the United States Senate commends

2 Stephen G. Bale for his exemplary service to the Senate

3 and the Nation; wishes to express its deep appreciation

4 for his long, faithful and outstanding service; and extends

5 its very best wishes upon his retirement.

6 SEC. 2. That the Secretary of the Senate shall trans7 mit a copy of this resolution to Stephen G. Bale.

Æ
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 18-3050

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Steven Ramirez, also known as Steven Ramiriz lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

____________ Submitted: March 27, 2019 Filed: April 23, 2019 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Steven Ramirez appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge and the District Court 1 sentenced him to the statutorily manda ted minimum prison term based in part

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, Un ited States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.on a 21 U.S.C. § 851 information filed by the government. Ramirez’s counsel has filed a brief under A nders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the District Court erred in sentencing Ramirez because the § 851 information referenced a prior conviction that was more than fifteen years old. Counsel also requests leave to withdraw. Although Ramirez’s plea agreement includes an appeal waiver, we decline to enforce the waiver because th e District Court at Ramirez’ s change-of-plea hearing did not adequately explain the terms of the waiver and ensure that Ramirez understood them. See United States v. Boneshirt , 662 F.3d 509, 515–16 (8th Cir. 2011), cert. denied , 565 U.S. 1227 (2012). Considering the merits of the Anders argument, we conclude that the District Court did not err in sentencing Ramirez. There was nothing improper about the government’s filing of the § 851 informati on, and Ramirez’s prio r conviction required the court to impose a prison term of at least ten years. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (setting forth penalties); id. § 851 (setting forth procedures to establish prior convictions that may subject a defendant to increased punishment); United States v. Chacon , 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussing the limited circumstances in which a district court may impose a sentence below the statutory minimum); see also United States v. LaBonte , 520 U.S. 751, 761–62 (1997) (explaining that a prosecutor’s discretion in seeking an e nhanced sentence based on a § 851 notice is similar to the discretion exercised in deciding what charges to bring and “is appropriate so long as it is not based upon improper factors”). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we have identified no non-fri volous issues for appeal. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

________________________________
-2-
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2309 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain sector mold press 

machines. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain 

sector mold press machines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SECTOR MOLD PRESS MACHINES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.84.89 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 sector mold press machines) is amended by striking the 

7 date in the effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2309 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.2


 


Non-Employee Directors
Compensation Summary


 


Effective May 23,
2005, the Executive Committee approved and the Board of Directors ratified a
modification to the Non-Employee Director fees to include an annual cash retainer,
an increase in the amount paid for attending Audit Committee meetings and a
decrease in the amount paid for attending meetings via teleconference.  The revised Non-Employee Director fee schedule is listed below.


 


	
  Annual Retainer

  	
   

  	
  $25,000 per year beginning 2005

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Board Meeting Fees

  	
   

  	
  $2,500 for Board meetings

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Meeting Fees

  	
   

  	
  $2,000 for Audit Committee meetings

  $1,250 for committee meetings other than the Audit Committee

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Scheduled Board/Committee Conference Calls

  	
   

  	
  $500 per meeting

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Equity Grants

  	
   

  	
  RSA’s valued at $40,000 at time of grant (based on
  10 trading day average) vesting 20%/30%/50% annually on terms consistent with
  prior years and subject to terms of the Company’s 2002 Long Term Incentive
  Plan
#### Whelan Drug Co., Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Doz, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

December 17, 1958.

*Max Berkow*for defendant.

*Aranow, Brodsky, Bohlinger, Einhorn <& Dann*for plaintiff.

M. Henry Martuscello, J.

Defendant moves under subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

This action is brought under article 24-A of the General Business Law (Fair Trade Law) (§§ 369-a, 369-b) and seeks an injunction and damages.

The court is authorized on this motion to accept as true the allegations contained in the complaint and to draw therefrom all inferences favorable to the plaintiff.

Defendant contends that the complaint is defective since it does not show that plaintiff was a party to any of the price contracts mentioned in the complaint. I am of the opinion that a nonsignatory to a fair-trade agreement may invoke the provisions of the Fair Trade Law against a nonsignatory competitor. In *Port Chester Wine & Liq. Shop*v. *Miller Bros. Fruiterers*(281 N. Y. 101, 106) it was held that “ Conscious dis*640regard of price maintenance provisions by non-signatories is made a *tort (‘*unfair competition ’) and is made ‘ actionable at the suit of *any person damaged thereby.’*This last phrase must, we think, be taken to include a retail reseller who is bound to abide by the resale price restrictions of a fair trade agreement.” (Italics supplied.)

Plaintiff although not a signatory was nevertheless bound under the law to abide by resale price restrictions of a fair-trade agreement and therefore comes within the phrase “ any person damaged thereby ’ ’.

Motion denied. Submit order.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Cogent, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ming Hsieh, Chief 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 to my 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.

This
certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated: August 9,
2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ MING HSIEH                       
|Ming Hsieh                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
APPENDIX 12B. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS 

SMALL BUSINESS INTERVIEW GUIDE 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

12B.1 MIA Interview Guide for Small Businesses 12B-1 

12B‐i 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 196
12B.1 MIA Interview Guide for Small Businesses 

Distribution Transformer 

Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis Interview Guide for Small Businesses 

1. Are you aware of the US Department of Energy’s on-going rulemaking to establish national 

minimum efficiency standards for distribution transformers?1

 Would you like to be added to 

the DOE’s email database for updates relating to this rulemaking? 

2. We are assessing the potential impacts of a potential minimum efficiency standard on small 

businesses. Is your company a small business (defined as less than 750 employees, including all 

subsidiaries and parent companies, and employees in all countries where you operate)? 

3. Does your company manufacture LV dry-type, MV dry-type, and/or liquid-immersed 

distribution transformers? How many different kVA ratings and designs do you produce 

within these three major groupings? 

4. Are you familiar with NEMA’s TP-1 / the ENERGY STAR voluntary standard? Are any of your 

products TP-1 compliant? If so, what percent of your sales does this represent? 

5. Would a TP-1 standard, mandated by the US DOE (whereby all your competitors would also 

required to meet the same standard), cause any burdens on your business? 

6. What if the US DOE required an efficiency standard higher than TP-1? Would that change 

your answer to #5? Please consider costs such as new designs, capital investment, prototype 

testing, and marketing that might be required. 

7. Are there any reasons that a small business such as yours might be at a competitive 

disadvantage relative to a larger business under mandatory efficiency standards? Please 

consider such factors as technical expertise, capital budgets, bulk purchasing power for 

material inputs (e.g., electrical steels), etc. 

8. Would the Department’s proposed test procedure impose an undue burden on small business 

(explanation required)?2 Please consider such factors as technician time, statistical expertise, 

reporting burden, etc. 

1

 For information on the US DOE’s efficiency standards rulemaking for distribution transformers, visit: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers_anopr.html 2

 For information on the US DOE’s draft test procedure for distribution transformers, visit: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers_snopr.html 

12B‐1 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 196
Exhibit 32.2

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 QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas E. Nickerson, Chief Financial 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: August 8, 2008



/s/ Douglas E. NickersonDouglas E. NickersonChief Financial Officer




Page 40
### NUM BER 13-0 8-00 706- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ JOH N DOE , A pp ellan t,
v . HEA RING BEFORE THE D IS TRICT 11 A-1 G R IE VA N C E C OMM IT T EE , A p p el le e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ On ap pe al f rom th e 2 8th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, John Doe , per fected an appeal fro m a judg ment ent ered by the 28th Di str ict C our

t of N ueces Cou nty , Tex as, in caus e number 08- 5579-A. Appel lan t has filed a moti on todi smi ssthe appeal on g ro unds thatappel lan t no lon g er w is hes to pu rs ue th e app eal. Ap pellan t requests tha t this Court dism iss the ap pea l.2

Th e C o u rt , hav ing co nsi dered th e doc uments on fil e and appel lan t’ s mot ion to dis mis s t he appe al, i s o f the opi nio n tha t t he moti on s houl d be g ra nted. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42 .1(a). App ellant ’s m otion t o dism iss is grant ed, and the ap pea l is here by DISMISSE D. Cos ts w il l be taxed ag ain st appel lan t. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1( d)( "Abse nt ag re ement of the p arti es, the cour

t w il l tax cos ts ag ain st the appel lan t.")

. Hav ing dis mis sed the a ppeal at ap pellan t’s request, no mot ion for rehea rin g wil l be ent ertain ed, and our ma nda te w ill is sue forthw it h.

PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s t he 19t h day

of Febr uar

y , 200 9.