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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6586

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD LEE PENNIX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-96-63, CA-99-334-7)

Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 26, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Lee Pennix, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Lee Pennix seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Pennix, Nos. CR-96-63;

CA-99-334-7 (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement of Earnings at December 31, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            89,979
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           46,842
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      27,380
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 175,656
<CASH>                                           2,136
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              16,605
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           8,563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,157
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 84,566
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             36,173
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,208
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   225,157
<PREMIUMS>                                      91,649
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              9,218
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,314
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     672
<BENEFITS>                                      57,728
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     24,984
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             5,840
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,781
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,136
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,645
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DENNIS LEE DAVIS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 2D18-2203

SUNTRUST BANK, ) 

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed June 5, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Highlands County; Larry Helms, Judge.

Ryan C. Torrens of Torrens Law Group, 

P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Philip D. Storey and Amanda Renee 

Murphy of Alvarez, Winthrop, Thompson

& Storey, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and KELLY and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### Buffalo Asbestos Disposal Corp., Appellant, v State University Construction Fund, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Fallon, J. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fallon, J. — Article 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Lowery, JJ.
#### BELL v. NATIONAL COLLECTION SYSTEM et al.

No. 36008.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 27, 1954.

*993W. R. Kerr, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Wilson & Leach, Tulsa, for defendants in error.

ARNOLD, Justice.

Plaintiff, a special officer serving process and other legal papers out of the court of A. W. Van Zandt, Justice of the Peace, District No. 9, Tulsa County, brought this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County against defendants for unpaid balance of fees due her in serving process in numerous cases filed by defendants as plaintiffs in said Justice of the Peace Court. Separate demurrers of defendants to plaintiff’s petition were sustained by the court and exceptions allowed. Plaintiff elected to stand on her petition, the court made an order dismissing her cause of action, and plaintiff has brought this appeal.

As stated by plaintiff in error, this is a companion case to and the same legal questions are involved in Kerr, Adm’x, v. United Collection Service, Okl.Sup., 267 P.2d 611, opinion by Johnson, V. C. J. The opinion in that case is hereby adopted as the opinion in this case.

Affirmed.

HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. C. J., and CORN, DAVISON, ARNOLD, O’NEAL and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.

WILLIAMS, J., dissents.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SCHREIBER MILLING & GRAIN COMPANY.

No. 442 Orig.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 23, 1939.

Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

O. W. Watkins, of St. Joseph, Mo., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from doing certain things and to take certain affirmative action, on petition for enforcement of order and stipulation of parties.
INVESTING IN COAL-IMPACTED

APPALACHIA

According to ARC research, Appalachia lost a total of 33,500 coal mining jobs between 2011 and 2016,

representing 82 percent of America’s job losses in this sector. While coal mining job losses are spread

across the Region, the highest concentration of these losses is in the Central Appalachian coalfields of

Kentucky and West Virginia. The Appalachian Regional Commission has now invested a total of over 

$94 million specifically to diversify the economy in 250 coal-impacted counties across 11 Appalachian

states. Together these investments are projected to create or retain almost 8,800 jobs, benefit thousands

of workers and students, and leverage an additional $210 million into the Region’s economy. Learn more

at www.arc.gov/POWER.

September 2017

Appalachian Regional Commission | 1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009 | 202.884.7700 | www.arc.gov | twitter.com/ARCgov | facebook.com/ARCgov

GEORGIA

SOUTH 

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

TENNESSEE

KENTUCKY

OHIO PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

VIRGINIA

NEW YORK

WEST

VIRGINIA

Appalachian Regional Commission, March 2017

Data Source: U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration

Change in Coal Mine

Employment by County,

2011-2016

0 100 50

Miles

Numeric Change

100 to 422

0 to 99

-499 to -1

-3,265 to -500

Area Served by ARC’s 

POWER Investments
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7501

KEITH TYRONE TROXLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRIAN WELLS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00592-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: February 16, 2016

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Tyrone Troxler, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Tyrone Troxler seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Troxler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50521

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM PAUL SHAVER,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 6:05-CR-148-ALL

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Shaver pleaded guilty without a written plea agreement

to theft of mail matter (Count 1), altering a financial obligation

(Count 2), possessing counterfeit obligations (Count 3), and access

device fraud (Count 4). The district court sentenced him to 60

months of imprisonment as to Count 1, and it upwardly departed from

the guidelines range to sentence him to 120 months of imprisonment
No. 06-50521

-2-

as to Counts 2, 3, and 4, with all of the sentences running

concurrently. 

Shaver argues for the first time on appeal that the court

plainly erred in failing to give him reasonable notice that it was

contemplating an upward departure and in failing to provide the

particular grounds on which such a departure would be based. Because, however, the presentence report (“PSR”) provided Shaver with

adequate information to give him an opportunity to comment on the

upward departure, the court did not plainly err. See United States

v. Milton, 147 F.3d 414, 420-21 (5th Cir. 1998).

Shaver contends the court erred in failing to provide specific

written reasons for its upward departure as is required by required

by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). But, the court’s written statement of

the guideline section pursuant to which it upwardly departed, fortified by more specific statements in the PSR and at sentencing

concerning the facts of the case and the reasons for the departure,

satisfied § 3553(c)(2). See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442

F.3d 345, 347-49 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2954 (2006).

AFFIRMED.
#### John C. PHILLIPS, Individually, etc., v. NORTHILL COMPANY, Inc., et al.

No. 9335.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 30, 1939.

Lincoln V. Johnson, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Wm. S. Graham, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before WILBUR, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon motion of appellees to dismiss appeal herein for failure of appellant to take appeal within the time allowed therefor, and good cause therefor appearing, ordered said motion granted, that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and mandate of this court issued forthwith.
================================================================================

                                  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 amended  Quarterly Report of Whistler  Investments,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the  quarter  ended April 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Mehboob Charania, 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 to the best of 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 result of
operations of the Company.

                                                /s/ Mehboob Charania
                                                --------------------
                                                Mehboob Charania
                                                Chief Financial Officer
July 21, 2004
<PAGE>   1
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
MHM Services, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-09147) on Form S-8 of MHM Services, Inc. of our report dated January 10,
2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of MHM Services, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of September 30, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2000, and the
related schedule, which report appears in the September 30, 2000, annual report
on Form 10-K of MHM Services, Inc.


                                  /s/ KPMG LLP


McLean, Virginia
January 12, 2001

                                       49
<PAGE>   1


                           PAIRGAIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                       EXHIBIT 21.1--LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              STATE OR JURISDICTION
                  NAME OF LEGAL ENTITY                           OF INCORPORATION
         ----------------------------------------           ---------------------------
<S>                                                              <C>
         PairGain Services Group, Inc.                            Delaware
         PairGain Canada Holding Ltd.                             Canada
         PairGain Canada, Inc.                                    Canada
         PairGain International Sales Corp.                       U. S. Virgin Islands
         PairGain Technologies AG                                 Switzerland
         PairGain Wallingford Design Center, Inc.                 Delaware
</TABLE>


         All are wholly-owned subsidiaries of PairGain Technologies, Inc.


                                      E-1
First Amendment to Employment Agreement between Wynn Las Vegas & James E. Pettis



 Exhibit 10.37 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of June 7, 2004, by and between Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (“Employer”) and James E. Pettis (“Employee”). Capitalized terms that are not defined
herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement (as defined below). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS,
Employer and Employee have entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2002 (the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Employer and Employee desire and agree to change Employee’s Title on the terms and pursuant to the conditions set forth herein; 

 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the respective
representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  
 1. Effective upon execution of this Amendment, Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

 
 “DUTIES OF EMPLOYEE. Employee
shall perform such duties assigned to Employee by Employer as are generally associated with the duties of Senior Vice President – Risk Management for Employer or such similar duties as may be assigned to Employee by Employer as Employer
may determine. Employee’s duties shall include, but not be limited to: (i) the efficient and continuous operation of Employer and its Affiliates; (ii) the preparation of relevant budgets and allocation or relevant funds; (iii) the selection and
delegation of duties and responsibilities of subordinates; (iv) the direction, review and oversight of all programs under Employee’s supervision; and (v) such other and further duties as may be assigned by Employer to Employee from time to
time. The foregoing notwithstanding, Employee shall devote such time to Employer’s Affiliates as may be required by Employer, provided such duties are not inconsistent with Employee’s primary duties to Employer. 







 2. Other Provisions of Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the Agreement is being modified
only as stated herein, and agree that nothing else in the Agreement shall be affected by this Amendment. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above. 
  

					
	WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC	 	EMPLOYEE
			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Marc Schorr

	 	 /s/ James Pettis


	 	 	 Marc Schorr
	 	 James E. Pettis

	 	 	 Chief Executive Officer
	 	 

  

 - 2 -
EXHIBIT 10.2


2004 Bonuses Paid to Iron Mountain Incorporated Named Executive Officers


 


The following table provides information concerning 2004 bonus compensation (paid in 2005) earned by the Chief Executive Officer, the other three most highly compensated executive officers of Iron Mountain Incorporated (the “Company”) and Robert G. Miller and Peter Delle Donne, each of whom would have been one of the most highly compensated executive officers of the Company for 2004 but for the fact that he was no longer an executive officer of the Company as of the end of 2004 (the “Named Executive Officers”). 


 


 



	
             
 	
            Name and Principal Position
 	
            Bonus
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            C. Richard Reese

Chairman of the Board and

Chief Executive Officer
 	
            $1,375,000

 

 
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            John F. Kenny, Jr.

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer
 	
             

$250,000   

 

 
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            Harold E. Ebbighausen

President of IMOSDP, a 

division of IMIM from 2002 until December 2004; currently Group President, North American Service Delivery

 
 	
             

$264,622   

 

 
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            Jean A. Bua

Senior Vice President and 

Corporate Controller
 	
            $44,036

 
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            Robert G. Miller(1)

President and Chief 

Operating Officer of

IMRM, a division of IMIM

 	
             

$            0  

 
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            

Peter E. Delle Donne(2)
President of Iron Mountain

Enterprise Solutions and

Services, a division of IMIM

 
 	
            $203,724    

 
 	
             
 




 


___________


 




	(1) 	  	Mr.
Miller became Executive Vice President-Development, Asia/Pacific in December 2004 and
was, therefore, not an executive officer of the Company as of December 31, 2004. 







	(2) 	  	Mr. Delle
Donne left the Company in December 2004 and was, therefore, not an executive officer of
the Company as of December 31, 2004.
EXHIBIT 23.1



<PAGE>

                                                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement  (Form S-8 No.  33-81214)  pertaining to the Employee Stock  Ownership
Plan and Trust of The Leather Factory, Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  333-07147)  pertaining  to the 1995 Stock  Option  Plan of The  Leather
Factory,  Inc.  of our  report  dated  February  4,  2002,  with  respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements  and schedule of The Leather  Factory,  Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.



HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 19, 2002
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6437-S6438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   RECOGNIZING HOPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to commend the Hope 
Elementary School of Hope, ME, on being named a 2012 National Blue 
Ribbon School of Excellence. This prestigious recognition of high 
accomplishment was bestowed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
  Created in 1982, the Blue Ribbon Schools award is considered the 
highest honor an American school can obtain. Schools singled out for 
this national recognition reflect the goals of our Nation's education 
reforms for high standards and accountability. Specifically, the Blue 
Ribbon Schools Program is designed to honor public and private schools 
that are either academically superior in their States or that 
demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement.
  This award recognizes that Hope Elementary students achieve at the 
highest level academically. Hope Elementary School is a top-performing 
school on State-required assessments, and staff at the school use 
assessments throughout the academic year as a tool for improving and 
customizing instruction. The school works closely with families to 
forge a strong school community where students are connected

[[Page S6438]]

and encouraged to pursue their interests.
  I applaud not only the students, but also the administrators, 
teachers, staff, and parents of Hope Elementary School. Together, they 
are succeeding in their mission to generate confidence and momentum for 
learning. They are making a difference in the lives of their students, 
helping them reach their full potential as independent, responsible 
learners and as engaged citizens.
  I am pleased that the U.S. Department of Education has selected Hope 
Elementary School for this well-deserved honor, and I congratulate the 
entire community for this outstanding achievement.

                          ____________________
```